Original Correspondence.

proper sense of the word " jobbery , " no such term can fairly or fitly he applied to our Masonic elections . But it is quite clear to me , that Brti . Simpson uses the word in a sense peculiar to himself , namely , in order to carry out certain precdnceived notions of what he deems a needful reform . He has olten expressed his opinion on the " interchange of votes , " which he declares to be "jobbery , "

and denounces as jobbery , though he has not a shadow of proof to bring forward in support of his assertion , and though he has been answered over and over again in your pages , I contend that the whole of his proposition rests upon an assumption , and that his contention is alike mistaken and untowartl . Yet on this " dictum " laid down by the " Lord knows who , " and certainly not infallible ,

I beg to observe that Bro . Simpson denounces our charitable elections as " jobbery , " aud does not even spare his brethren in Masonry . Dr . Johnson defines "job " to be a "low , mean , lucrative , busy affair , " and "jobber" to be " one who sells stocks in the public funds . " In process of time " jobbery " has come to signify , as it has been well put by some one , a

ccrrupt transaction which is brought about from interested motives or personal feeling , without any consideration for the " fitness of things , " or " pro bono publico . " I ask , somewhat indignantly , I confess , is this a fitting description by a brother Mason of our Masonic elections . I fancy that there will be but one equally indignant reply in the Craft .

As a proof how hollow is the cry for " voting reform and how unwise it is to trust to committees alone , I call attention to a recent case in one of our charities which 1 for one should not have been surprised if Bro . Simpson , taking the " high moral line , " or any other line you like , had eloquently denounced , as approaching the confines of " jobbery , "—for obvious reasons I name no names ,

though the case is well known now to most of us . The case is simply this . The father of the poor orphan , having subscribed to a colonial lodge for two years , ( this was the maximum , if even this was obtained ) , leaves Masonry , and dies out of Masonry seven years later . The orphan ' s claim is recommended by an influential committee , brought forward , strongly supported at thc General

Committee , antl , despite its obvious infraction of the laws of the institution , carried persistently by a large ma j ority . I note in the list of leading Masons who originally supportctl the ca . se the name of our esteemed Bro . R . J . Simpson himself . I admit , however , that in the October circular his name had been withdrawn . Now locking at the case simply as an act of

Masonic law and cejuity , I , for one , feel that if any matter might be fairly deemed more deleterious in itself or more prejudicial to the charity , or more unfair to those many brethren who live and die in Masonry , and whose orphans cannot get into the School , this is thc case " par excellence , " as the French would say . It is the " . weakest case I have ever known , " as was well remarked

in a correspondence which appeared a short time back in thc Freemason , and I hope never to sec another like it . I quite agree with Bro . Simpson when he says so eloquently , " I siy it quietly , dispassionately , and deliberately , and I am quite sure that investigation into the different claims of candidates forms one of the first necessities of our charities being properly worked ; and secondly , that

the more we carry our charities out of the happy-go-lucky and haphazard system into the intelligent antl deserving category the better it will be . " But how does this admirable lesson of administration accord with the recent case , which was one of the most " haphazard happy-golucky " proceedings I ever heartl of , and which convinces me that committees want looking after as much as

subscribers r I am inclined to hope that Beo . Simpson said a little more than he meant in the fervour of his eloquence , and that he may on second thoughts be willing to withdraw so objectionable a word as "jobbery . " If he has no other excuse , he can make use of the one put forward by a speaker at a large dinner , in a town wilh which Bro . Simpson is well acquainted , when having made a signal blunder he excused

himself thus happily , and amid thc loud applause of the company . " Gentlemen , I am sorry for what 1 have just said , but I have lost , gentlemen , one of my front teeth , and wor s will come out , gentlemen , nolens volens . " I shall be glad to see a disclaimer in your pages from our worthy brother , the P . G . C . I am , dear Sir and Brother , yours most fraternally , AN OLD STEWARD FOR THE CHARITIES .

THE GRAND ORIENT OF FRANCE . To the Editor if Ihe " Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — Thtre is , it seems , no doubt that the Grand Orient of France will be excommunicated by the Angle-Saxon Grand Lodges , and therefore the union of the Craft be dissolved . This unhappy fact is only to be regretted , not more to be hindered .

Allow me to ask or . ee more , what has the Grantl Orient of France dene in its last vote ? It has eliminated a . profession of faith from its constitutions which docs net belong to Masonic law , and which was not in thc French Constitutions before . The Grantl Orient has at present a similar law as the German Grantl Lodges . For thtre was never in any German Grand Lotlge a passusorS .

( MC ) concerning the belief in God , nor is this the case in the General Regu ' . ilitin ** , the fundamental Masonic principles adopted by the German Giand Lodge League . Never has an ) German Grand Lodge asked a candidate before he was initiated as to his belief whatever , and , nevertheless

the Grantl Lodge of England has found faith with German Masonry . A hundred ycars ago the great philosopher , J . G . Fichte , was initialed , notwithstanding he was denounced by his contemporaries as an Atheist . Bro , Fichte was a man of the highest moral worth , a

Original Correspondence.

perfect Mason , and my German brethren are proud of such a member of the Craft . Wc have at present a great number of brethren in our lodges who do not believe in a " personal " God , and are convinced that the question of a " Creator" of the world is not a religious but only a physical question , a question on the cause of casuality in general . These non-believing brethren belong to our best

and worthiest Masons , and they are loved and venerated without regard to their belief or non-belief , as in Germany the lodges only ask whether the candidate is a moral and educated man or not . We consitler the Craft as a purely moral institution , and securing freedom of conscience and profession , and acknowledge each honest and true conviction . All this has only reference to the individual brother Mason ; the lodge as such and the Craft as such

acknowledge thc Great Architect of thc Universe . If the Grand Orient of France , who has not voted against the belief in God , has committed a Masonic crime , then all continental Masonry is guilty of the same crime . No Masonic Popery can prevent continental Masons from being convinced that absolute freetlom of conscience is the true meaning of our Royal Art . Believe me , dear Brother , most fraternally yours , J . G . FINDEL .

THE ORDER OF ST . JOHN . 7 b the Editor of the " Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — I observe that in your issue of the jth inst . you ask for information respecting the perpetuation and continuation of the Order of St John in England . The following is the account of the same , given bv the

existing Order of St . John of Jerusalem in Auglia , and put forth by them in their brief notice of the Order , & c , in 1874 : — "In the ) ear 1826 the five associated branches of thc Order projected the revival of the dormant Langue of England , and negociations were entered into with thc Rev . Sir Robert Peat , D . D ., G . C . S ., Chaplain to King George

IV ., and other English gentlemen , who consented to aid in the re-establishment of the Order in England , and at a chapter assembled in Paris , antl representing the great majority of five of the then existing divisions of the Order , the resuscitation of the Order in England was resolved . The Chevalier de Chastelain was tleputed to attend a meeting convened at London of Englishmen interested in the

project , when he formally revived the English Langue , and invested the Rev . Sir Rojert Peat with the functions and authority of Grand Prior of England . This is the utmost amount of authority claimed by the existing Order for their assumption of the titles of the Knights Hospitaller , whose members were the defenders of Christendom for so many years .

I should like to call the attention of your readers to a few facts respecting this last-named Order . On the 29 th November , 1797 , the Emperor Paul I . of Russia assumed the title ot Protector of the Order of Malta . On the 27 th Oct . 179 8 , the same Emperor was proclaimed Grand Master of the Order , ( the last Grand Master of the Order , who was duly elected according to the constitution of the

Order , namely , Ferdinand Von Hampesch , being still living ) . On the 6 th July , 1799 , a formal abdication of the Grand Mastership by Ferdinand Von Hampesch in favour of the Emperor Paul was made and forwarded to St . Petersburgh . On the 20 th July , 1801 , the Sacred Council of the

Sovereign Order of St . John of Jerusalem , being then assembled at St . Petersburgh , published a proclamation setting forth the mode of election of a Grand Master in the place of the Emperor Paul , then deceased . On the 27 th of June , 1802 , John de Tommasi was elected Grand Master in pursuance of the last mentioned proclamation . De Tommasi was succeeded in 1805 by Guevara

Luardo , who was followed in 1814 by Andre di Giovannj Centclleo , in 1821 by Antoine Busca , and in 1834 by Carlo de Candida . On di Canelida ' s death , Count Colloredo was elected , and in 18 5 8 he was slid Grantl Master . Thc further devolution of the office I have not been able to trace satisfactorily , but I believe it to be vested in thc Marquis de Santa Crccc , who appears to have been elected in 1872 .

The English Order of St . John , although revived in the manner I have before quoted , has never been recognised by the Sacrctl Council , nor by any of the Giand Masters before mentioned . In a publication , datctl 1841 , and emanating from the Chancery of the British Langue ( the revived Order ) , I fuul the name of M . Carlo tie Candida set down as that of the

Grand Master , ad interim . It appears from this lhat within 7 ycars from their formation , the English Langue fully recognised the then Grantl Master of the Order , as duly appointed , and that it was only on the lefusal of recognition by thc General Council that they thought of disputing their p * m * er or authority . I shoultl be the last to disparage the many good works done by thc members of the revived Order , but I share thc

objections stated by the correspondent of the time ' , whose letter you quote , to persons sailing under borrowed colours , antl I hope that Sir Edward E . A . H . Lechmerc , or some other member of the revived Order , will be able to fully prove the title of its members to the names and reputation tbat they claim as their own . Apologising for this trespass on your valuable space , I am yours fraternally , PANACHE .

[ The following is Colonel Porter ' s able letter which has frequently been referred to in the discussion . Ed . ] To the Editor if the " Times . " Sir , —May I ask your permission to add a few words to the controversy between the most noble the Marquis of Carabas , K . G ., and Sir E . Lechmerc on the subject of Pretenders . '

Original Correspondence.

It behoves those who bring forward accusations as to the wrongful assumption of titles to be very careful that they do not fall into a similar error . Our friend the Marquis states that the English branch of the Order of St . John , of which Sir E . Lechmere is the valued Secretary-General , is not recognised by the Grand Master of the Order . May I ask the Marquis who is this Grand Master ? I have for

many years made the history of the Order of St . John a favourite study , and am naw startled to discover the existence of a dignity which I had deemed extinct . Hitherto , I have been led to believe that the last Grand Master of thc Order was Ferdinand Hotnpesch , who surrendered the island of Malta to Napoleon in 1798 . Although the Emperor Paul of Russia afterwards assumed the dignity ,

his right thereto was never recognised , and after his death I have always imagined that the office fell into abeyance . Perhaps " Carabas , K . G ., " can inform me who the present holder is , and how he was elected . As regards the dispute between "Carabas , K . G ., " and Sir E . Lechmere , the real truth seems to be this—Neither the fragment of the Order resident at Rome under the

patronage of the Pope , nor that other important , but now extinct , fragment , consisting of thc three French langues , to whom our English branch owes its revival , possessed the power of exclusive jurisdiction . The English langue claims its right of affiliation through the latter , and the former is powerless to deny it . It is a very pretty quarrel , and will not be set at rest by such attacks as those of " Carabas , K . G . " The English

branch has bestirred itself to work in accordance with the intentions of the original founders , and is consequently yearly growing in influence and numbers . Let the Roman branch follow our example . They will by so doing act far better up to thc motto of the Order , " Pro utilitate hominum , " than by useless attacks upon our raison d ' etre . WHITWORTH PORTER , Colonel Royal Engineers .

To the Editor of thc " Times . " Sir , —Colonel Whitworth Porter docs me the honour to descend into the lists antl challenge my accuracy , because I usetl the term " Grand Master" in the letter you were so good as to insert in The Times . The Colonel raises thereby an entirely distinct issue from that to which I have hithertc addressed myself . Permit

me to add a few words on this subject at thc end of this letter which I hope will give the Colonel a sufficient answer to his question , " Who is this Grand Master ?" Our question is a different one—viz ., whether the asso » ciation to which the Colonel and Sir E . Lechmere and so many more honourable and excellent men belong is a legitimate branch , or a branch at all , of the historic Order

of St . John of Jerusalem , commonly called the Knights ot Malta . If Colonel Porter will turn to page 821 of the "Almanach de Gotha" ft . r the present year , 1878 , he will find , under the heading "Ordre Souvcrain de S . Jean de Jerusalem , " the style and name of our present head as follows— " Lieutenant Grand Matire , le bailli fra Ceschi a Santa Croce ( e'lu le 14 Fevrier , 1871 ) . " Then follow the

names of the Council of the Gran-Magistero—viz ., the four Grand Priors of Rome , Bohemia , the Lombard-Venetian , and the Two Sicilies , the Vice-Chancellor of the Order , & c . After the Italian Priories and tbe German Langu c follow the Associations de Chevaliers d' Honneur et Devotion—viz ., 1 . thc Rhenane—Westphalian ; 2 , the Silesian ; and 3 , the English , whose President is the Earl

Granard . The fact , then , is as I have stated—that though the asscciation calling themselves Knights of St . John maybe a philanthropic society doing much good , as I am glad to hear from Colonel Porter , it is not a recognised portion of the Order ot Malta ; in a word , it has made itself . Now to conclude with a word about my use of the

term " Grand Master . " Colonel Porter's historic researches are accurate when he tells us that Count Hompesch was our last Grand Master in the strict sense of the words , but they have led him into eiror if he supposes that the Order remained in an acephalous condition when the sovereignty of Malta was wrested from it by the French ( to be ceded by them in turn to England , in trust for the Order , be it

said en passant , by the Treaty of Amiens ) . On thc contrary , thc ofiice was , antl is still , filled by Lieutenant Grantl Masters , in regular succession , and elected by the statutable officers of thc Order . 1 he Lieutenant Grand Master , the Bailli Brother Ceschi a Santa Croce , and his council and officers , arc , therefore , distinctly not a " fragment , " as Colonel Porter says , but thc legitimate and

sole head and governing botly of the Order , exercising alone the sovereign rights still remaining to them ; such , for instance , as that cf sending a Minister-Plenipotentiary and Envoy-Extraordinary , who resides anil is received as such at the Impt rial and Royal Couit of Vienna . The reason why our Grand Master is styled " Lieutenant" is that his dignity as a Sovereign Prince , recognised by all the

crowned heads of Europe , was such that when deprived of his dominions it was felt that a Lieutenancy , or Commission as it would be called if vested in more than one , as the Lord Lieutenancy of London is held in commission , if I mistake not , was more suited to his fallen fortunes . Lit mc add but two more "last words . " Colonel Whitworth Poiter himself embodies the whole question at issue .

He signs , Colonel Royal Artillery . " I look to the " Army List" and find him in his proper place there . He and his friends say they are members of the Order of St . John . I look in our ollic ' ul list , and lo , they are not!—neither they nor their Secretary- General , nor anything that is theirs . I wish them well , I shall be most glad to

show them over our little " good work , " the stately Church and useful Hospital of St . John and St . Elizabeth in Great Ormond-street ; but I must once more , and finally , assert that it ii only in the sense in which they are Knights of St . John that I am , Sir , your obedient servant , CARABAS , K . G .