The Close Of The London Season.

ways was and will always be . In this , our frreat metropolis , the London season is an absolute necessity for a large number of industrious tradesmen , and affords the means of living to many useful dependants , and it therefore seems to us the excess of moralizing bathos , to

denounce what is alike needful and inevitable , especially when it is more than doubtful if that hig h moral tone which some assume so readily to-day may not be , after all , the result of conventional criticism , and ever , of sanctimonious hypocrisy .

The Fatal Accident To A Yacht.

THE FATAL ACCIDENT TO A YACHT .

Our always loyal brotherhood will feel deeply with the Queen , affected as she was with this mournful accident . Had the position been reversed , as the " Times " well puts it , what grief and regrets would have been ours . As Freemasons we shall deeply sympathise with our inestimable Sovereign , and with the suffering family left to mourn so great a calamity .

The Address Of The Sheffield Freemasons To The Prince Of Wales.

THE ADDRESS OF THE SHEFFIELD FREEMASONS TO THE PRINCE OF WALES .

The following address from thc Freemasons of Sheffield , richly illuminated by Mr . 11 . J . Jones , and handsomely bound in brown morocco , ornamented with Masonic emblems and the arms of Sheffield in heraldic colours , by Messrs . Pawson and Brailsford , has been transmitted to

his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales , through the Provincial Grand Master of West Yorkshire , Lieut .-Colonel Sir Henry Edwards , Bart ., D . L ., J . P . : — "To the Most High , Most Puissant , and Most Illustrious Albert Edward , Prince of Wales , K . G ., K . P ., K . T ., G . C . B ., Most Worshipful Grand Master of Freemasonry in England , whom may the Great Architect of the Universe long

preserve . " May it please your Royal Highness . " In anticipation of the visit of your Royal Highness to Sheffield on the lfith day of August , we , the Masters , Past Masters , Wardens , and brethren of the Britannia No .

130 , Royal Brunswick No . 296 , and Wentworth No . 1239 , lodges of Ancient , Free , and Accepted Masons , beg to express the great delight with which we shall welcome the presence of your Royal Highness , and that of her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales , to this seat of manufacturing industry , in the province of West

Yorkshire . " We embrace this opportunity of assuring your itoyal Highness of our warm attachment to the Queen , to yourself , and thc Princess of Wales , and of our steadfast loyalty to thc Throne and Constitution ef these realms . " We desire also to express our unfeigned gratification

at your recent installation as Most Worshipful Grand Master of Freemasonry in England . We rejoice in the possession by your Royal Highness of the position so long and so worthily filled by your illustrious relatives the late Dukes of Sussex and Kent , and we acknowledge with pride and gratitude our fraternal attachment to your person , as well as our loyal obedience to you as thc recognised head

of our ancient and honourable institution . " We fervently pray that your Royal Highness may be long spared to rule and govern the Craft , and that its fundamental principles of ' Brotherly love , relief , and truth , ' may take deep root , not only in the hearts of all Masons , but in thc hearts of all men . " Commending your Royal H ighness to the protection

of the Grent Architect of thc Universe , we are , in the name of thc Craft of Sheffield , your Royal 1 lighness's most devoted and faithful servants , "SIMEON HAYES , W . M . Britannia , No . 139 , " HENIIY PAWSON , W . M . Royal Brunswick , No . 296 . " F . M . TiNDAi . i ., W . M . Wcntworth , No . 1239 . " Freemasons' Hall , Sheffield , August , 1875 . "

Original Correspondence.

Original Correspondence .

[ We do not hold ourselves responsible for , or even as approving of the opinions expressed by our correspondents , but \ vc wish , in a spirit of fair play to ail , to permit—within certain necessary limits—free discussion . —ED . ]

BRO . MAJOR BURGESS . To the Editor of the Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — In the interest of fair play , I have reason , I think , to complain of your suppression of the most important part of Major Burgess ' s letter to Mr . Tinkler , which I sent

to you last week . So far from the passage which you thought fit to omit "not affecting the question in any way , " it is thc very passage which contained the gravest and most offensive accusation which one Mason , or indeed one gentleman , can bring against another . And this you ought , 1 think , to have stated , as the fragment of the letter which you have

published does not contain the offensive charge at all , to prove or withdraw which Major Burgess was summoned before the authorities of thc Temple . I never stated that there was only one member of the Temple present on the Judicial Council . All present were members of the Temple—one only " represented " themviz ., Lord Limerick . General Clerk , Major Clerke , and Colonel Hutton Gregory represented the 33 ; Earl

Original Correspondence.

Percy , M . P ., Mr . Beach , M . P ., and thc Rev . G . R . Portal represented thc Mark Degree . Neither Sir P . Colquhoun nor Mr . Tinkler sat at all . The former was present in thc room as prosecutor while the charge was being made , the latter was Secretary to the Judicial Council , andtook notes of the proceedings . I again repeat ( as the fragment which you have printed

of Major Burgess ' s letter shows ) that the reason assigned by that brother for his resignation of membership with the Temple was the alleged disgraceful conduct of . another Templar . This charge , affecting the honour of the Order , and of the brother in question , Major Burgess is summoned to prove otto withdraw . He does neither , cither then or before the Judicial Council to which he appealed . For this , which is

a matter of honourable conduct , and not of "discipline " at all , he has been most justly removed from a society of honourable men . Yours fraternally , A MAHK MASTER . [ We disagree with our worthy correspondent on two points . First , we feel sure we are right in not yielding to

this hyper-publication of Masonic formula ? , and this discussion publicly of points only to be discussed in lodge . The same rule applies to the high grades . And secondly , we look at the whole matter as simply a question of discipline . We may be wrong , but such is our honest opinion , and we feel bound to say so . —ED . ]

To Ihe Editor of the hreemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — Will you allow me to suggest that all writers upon this question should sign their real names to their letters . At present we have nameless individuals bandying

inuendos calculated to take away a man ' s character , whilst talking childishly about the select aristocratic exclusiveness of the "Mark" Degree , mere moonshine , and having no real foundation in fact or history . I should like to know what has become of the good old-fashioned theory that in Masonry the prince and the peasant are equal .

There is , 1 understand , some threat of legal proceedings , which prevents my mentioning names ; but 1 have to ask this " Mark Master " whether his Grand Lodge did not last year expel a brother Mason ( one of the most worthy gentlemen an 1 Masons I ever knew ) , who , to my certain knowledge , and , 1 doubt not , that of ' •Mark Master ' s" also , had resigned all connection with " Mark " exclusiveness (!)

many years ago . Did they do so or not ?—the Mark Degree having no charge against him save that , although he did not belong to the Mark degree , he did belong to orders outside genuine Craft Masonry of which this un-Masonic alliance did not approve . Where , then , is our freedom ?—honesty already has fled . One thing is quite clear , and that is that peace has for

ever departed from all the combined tripartite-treaty bodies , and dissolution or suppression must necessarily soon follow if there is still , as I believe , much true Masonry left outside them . Therefore , although I know nothing of the petty quarrel which is now progressing , 1 suspect the worst , and

hope that you will allow mc a word of warning to innocent brethren , and a caution that they be not misled by the clap-trap of an organization which has been working all along under false history . Let us , then , have the truth or nothing , under real names . I remain , yours truly , J YAHKEH .

DEVON PROVINCIAL GRAND LODGE . To the Editor if the Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — I have read with much interest in your last paper thc report of the above lodge meeting at Exeter , particularly the motion made by Bro . Jones to give 50 guineas to the Devon and Exeter Hospital , which was

opposed by Bro . Watts and other brethren , who contended that it was not Masonic to give money to institutions that were in no way connected with Masonry . I am one of thc " other brethren " who supported Bro . Watts . Bro . Metham protested against this remark of Bro . Watts , and argued that it was ostensibly Masonic I shall be very

much obliged il Bro . Metham will refer me to the pr . ge and paragraph in our Book of Constitutions that warrants him in so saying , for by that book , and by that book alone , we are ' governed , and not by the dictum of Bro . Metham . I am , Sir , your faithful Brother , AN OI . II P . M ., ONE , & C .

MINUTES AND THEIR CONFIRMATION . 7 b the Editor of the Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — Will you permit an old Mason who has had some experience in the administration of our laws to endeavour once for all to put right a matter which , however simple in itself , seems to have soiely exercised some of our

brethren ? f refer to the question again raised in your last issue by Bro Tebbs , P . P . G . Chaplain , Somerset , in regard to " Minutes and their Confirmation . " Had I not received several letters asking for information on this subject , from brethren who I had imagined must have known the law , I could hardly have believed that so much misconception could have existed on the matter .

Let me state the case as I believe it has always been stated by the executive , and as it has be' : n declared more than once in Grand Lodge . Thc Constitutions provide that ceitain matters shall not be binding , unless they have been proposed , seconded , and carried at one meeting and have been confirmed at tlie next ensuing meeting ( see p . 28 , sec 8 ) . The matters

stated to require confirmation are few but important , and it is from their very importance that they are made to require confirmation—e . g ., the election of Master from the Grand Master downwards , grants of money beyond a certain amount , the making of a new law , or the alteration or repeal of an old one , etc ., & c , etc These all require a second , separate , and distinct action at

Original Correspondence.

an ensuing lodge before they become valid . This second and separate action is called confirmation , and without it the first act , namely ,-that of carrying the motion , is null and void . 1 cannot agree witli Bro . Tebbs in his views of our laws , nor in thinking that at a lodge meeting where the brethren meet for the purpose of confirming the minutes

as to the election of W . M ., the members present will be found to " consist probably of entirely different brethren . " I should have thought that it would not be so in most lodges ¦ be that however as it may , it is the evident intention and spirit of the law that all thc brethren should at each of the two meetings , viz ., that for the election of W . M . and that for confirmation of his election , have the opportunity of

voting for or against him . 1 his provision is made not only for the purpose of assuring time for due consideration of so important a matter , but that every member may have an opportunity of recording bis vote at , at least , one or other of the meetings . I have referred to some of the matters which require confirmation . There are others , and they are a large

majority , which do not require confirmation , but are acts done and accomplished in full by one vote of the lodge , such as , in private lodges , the election of a candidate or joining member , the resignation of members , etc ., etc . ; in Grand Lodge the grant of money below a certain amount , the appointment of boards or committees , thc reception of reports , & c , CYC .

It may , I think , be laid down as a general rule that nothing requires confirmation at subsequent lodge to make it valid except such cases as are provided for by the Book of Constitutions , or by an approved bye-law of a lodge . Why then , it is asked , arc all minutes put for confirhe is

mation ? ^ answer simple . Minutes are put for confirmation for two , I may say for three , reasons . 1 st . That any previous acts therein recorded , and which require confirmation , may be confirmed . 2 nd . To shew that all acts done are correctly recorded ; and 3 rd . For the information cf those who were not present on the last

oc-. Upon the minutes being put for confirmation , it is competent to any brother to move the non-confirmation of any resolution passed at a previous meeting , provided that such resolution is one which the Constitutions , or an approved bye-law-of a private lodge , state shall require confirmation—if the notice for non-confirmation be carried

the previous act of the lodge becomes null and void ; but in any other case it is not competent to a brother to move the non-confirmation of thc previous resolutions of the lodge ; he can object to the accuracy of the record , and may move to have it amended , i . e ., he may alter the description , but he must let the fact alone . Yours fraternally , P . G . W .

Review.

Review .

" The Union Review . " J . H . BATTY , 2 , Bedford-street , Strand . It seems somewhat odd , perhaps , that an Anglican Ritualistic Review , the " Union , " which calls itself a " Magazine of Catholic Literature and Art , " should be reviewed in the " Freemason , " but as it has been specially forwarded to us , wc feel bound to make some-allusion to it . Probably the

reason why we have received it is , that it contains a very laboured and , we must say , unfair article on Freemasonry . For all such writers do not deal with Freemasonry fairly . They take a . part for the whole , and argue from a particular to an universal , or they rely on the angry compilations of some hot-headed fanatic , ; with more zeal than brains , who by the use of manipulated selections of

garbled passages , and of unauthorised documents , seeks in unseemly haste to make out a case against Freemasonry , nearly always , let us observe , from an Ultramontane point of view . And , therefore , from isolated speeches , and individual opinions , the illogical writer condemns all Freemasonry and all Freemasons . He does not even take the trouble to point out the great difference between continental

and Anglo-Saxon Freemasonry , but as he unhesitatingly brands the former as irreligious and revolutionary , so he brings the other without thc shadow of excuse for his unreasoning folly under the same fell charge . There is nothing in the article which has not been repeated over and over again , " usque ad nauseam , " and even if the writer could make good all his allegations , which he cannot ,

we m England have happily nothing to do either with the attack or the defence ! The matter docs not concern us . But with somewhat of Jesuitical finesse , though the writer docs not directly attack Freemasonry in Great Britain , he evidently wishes his readers to infer , that Freemasonry is the same everywhere , and that Freemasons arc a " deuced bad lot . " One remark of his however , seems to

affect us as much as our continental brethren , and therefore we think well to notice it . The universal formulary of Freemasonry , " In the Name of the Great Architect of the Universe , " is made a distinct charge of heresy against all Freemasons . Because , says this careful reader of Old Aldrich , because the Freemasons put this at the head of their circulars , they are pure Deists , they deny and

antagonize the doctrine of the Holy Trinity . Most logical of accusers ' . Yet our good friend's argument is alike unsound in its premise , and untrue in its assumption . We can well fancy the surprise and alarm which many of our worthy and most orthodox brethren will experience when theyliear that this well-known and most innocent formulary

is a proof of their flagrant heterodoxy . As a rule we Freemasons object to have anything to do with anybody else's " doxy , " but we fancy that the great majority of Freemasons out of the lodge are as respectable Christians and as orthodox believers as the most advanced of Ritualists , perhaps even somewhat more orthodox . This formula is well known to bo one of universal compre-