-
Articles/Ads
Article Original Correspondence. ← Page 2 of 3 Article Original Correspondence. Page 2 of 3 Article Original Correspondence. Page 2 of 3 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Original Correspondence.
But " D . D . " also provides the answer , by saying , "By their subscriptions they have acquired influence , which they arc entitled to use as to them may seem best . " Exactly so , the votes arc bought and paid for , whether through a London or provincial Steward matters not , the owner has a right to use them as he pleases . But when " D . D . " suggests , ( and with good reason ) , that a brother in such
a position is most likely to assist a case arising in the province , and within his knowledge , than one " unknown to him amidst the great maze of London , " I would say , the more need then of such an association as this , which will make it its business occasionally to extricate from the great maze and bring into daylight a deserving case , which might otherwise be too feebly supported .
The expression , " levelling down principle , " which "D . D . " twice ? uses in his letter , somewhat perplexes me , as it appears to convey some sort of reproach ; but I fail yet to see what there is in our organisation deserving of reproach . " Levelling down" is certainly not a " principle " of the London Masonic Charity As sociation . It can scarcely be applied to the junior and less influential members .
I observe that among the members of the Association are three brethren who can poll together in the course of a year at least 650 votes . These votes used for the benefit of a single candidate would occasionally be sufficient to ensure success . Brethren having this amount of influence at command may be supposed to have had also a large amount of experience in Masonic business ; but if they , and
such as they , are pleased to co-operate with others having but little influence for the benefit of candidates , I think it would be very ungracious to accuse them of countenancing a "levellingdown principle , " or doing that which is likely to prove injurious to the institutions , and cause our Secretaries any anxiety . On the contrary , I apprehend that their example will prove highly beneficial , by instilling a
spirit of emulation into the younger members of the Craft , and inducing them to take greater interest in , and give renewed support to , those grand institutions of which we have so much reason to be proud . Your " Irrepressible Correspondent" asserted recently that " padding " was acceptable at this time of year , so I won ' t apologise for the length of this letter , but subscribe myself , dear Sir and brother , yours faithfully ,
A JVIEMBER OF THE LONDON MASONIC CHARITY ASSOCIATION . P . S . I have noticeel also " H . L . ' s '' letter , in which he alludes to Bro . Perceval , but I think " H . L . " has only discovered a " mare ' s nest . "
To the Editor of the " Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother . Since the starting of the London Masonic Charity Association , there has been a feeling of jealousy and suspicion engendered , not only in the provincial bodies with identically the same object in view , anel which have been
formed for years , and whose example we arc following , or endeavouring to follow , after the scores of lessons they have taught us of the necessity for , anil the usefulness in combination for , the ends we have in view , not only in the provinces , but also in individual members of the Craft in the province of London , or metropolitan district . I will endeavour to find out the cause of irritation in both cases .
First , the provinces have been indebted to their success , in a considerable measure , not only by the combined efforts within themselves , but by the large number of London votes they have been able by individual influence , friendship , or otherwise-, to obtain from London members of the Craft , who thoughtlessly or wilfully blind to the exigencies of those immediately around them , fail to see
that the legitimate and natural use of the privileges obtained by their munificence is being drawn from them by the provinces , to whom the London cases have , as a rule , not the slightest interest , whose sole : thought is for themselves provincially , anil who feel jealous , and hurt that we have found out the error of our ways , and are at length endeavouring to profit by the long-taught lesson they have
put before us ; and so are likely to lessen their continually increasing disproportionate majority . With regard to individual London Masons , two reasons may be ascribed , the first I think too puerile ; to have found weight with many , viz : That they , as little gods , we re not consulteil before any of the oi polloi dared to move in such a matter , howevcrnecessary , without having consulted all anil every one
of these self-maelc deities . The other , which I take to be the true place where the shoe pinches , is the fear and extreme probability of their losing their long held influential individualism , as many of our brethren , of the highest integrity , most unimpeachable honour , long tried experience , and undoubted ability , have been entrusted by their own friends and acquaintances
and their friends again , with their several and combined votes , so by that means a very large amount of power is placed in the hands of one individual , the proper use of which rests entirely en his own judgment , which may be rightfully or wrongfully biassed by various causes . Very often these ve . tes go entirely away from the province in w hich they were raised , to which there- would be no objection
if the other provinces acted on the free traelc principle , and not on purely conservative tactics ; and if the case was pre-eminently urgent and deserving , but the predicate supposition being in the negative , London , to be true to herself , must adopt the same policy . This weakness is not only charactctistic of the English individual , but of the English nation , for hmv often do we read and
hear of thousands of pounds going freim England to relieve the distressed foreigner , while there : arc thousands of starving poor at our very door , anil 1 take it that the old adage , " that true charity begins at home , " is pretty near the mark in Masonry , as well as all other cases . The following . st . -1 listic .-1 l table for 18 7 8 will establish the true facts of , anil the necessity fur , the step that has been taken with regard to the Charities .
Original Correspondence.
SUBSCRIPTIONS . RECIPIENTS . I c SoSc c "j 3 ° S . 2 o " 3 -C ° O O £ . 8 -y "o . S ° ¦ " 13 -a c .-a a % J 2 igJ j 'i % l tn t—1 , * - ^ U *— ' v _ J i _ i rii- < C ^ H P , 5 PH w r = 5
£ £ £ R . M . B . I . ... 6012 5028 9 8 4 6 9 16 9 100 R . M . I . Boys 7487 5313 2174 49 109 60 R . M . I . Girls 5577 4891 686 72 116 44 Total 19 , 07615 , 232 3844 190 394 204
The equitable proportion Majority for would be : — London . R . M . B . I . 129 100 20 R . M . I . Boys 86 72 14 R . M . I . Girls 102 86 16 317 267 50
I should think that these figures must convince the most sceptical of what combination has done for the provinces , and what individualism has failed to do for London . Yours fraternally , A VICE-PRESIDENT OF EACH OF THE INSTITUTIONS .
OUR GRAND LODGE CALENDAR . To the Editor of the " Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — As the time is drawing near for the appearance of our official Calendar , I am anxious to obtain a little information respecting one or two matters which appear to me , in all deference be it said , neither business-like in
themselves , nor leading to the advantage of the Fund of Benevolence . It would seem that for the " privilege " of printing the Masonic Calendar and Pocket-book , our worthy Bro . Spencer pays £ 20 per annum to Grand Lodge . A moiety of thatamount , £ 10 , was paid Nov . 7 th , 1877 , " for 1 S 78 , " so that I presume the contract is entered into for a term of years . This seems , then , to be the actual sum
that the Fund of Benevolence obtains for this great " privilege . " It might have been a fair payment years ago , but the increase of the Craft and the claims of trade must require altered arrangements , and should be represented by a far larger amount . One should like to know how this amount £ 20 is calculated , whether as a lump sum or as a royalty . In either case it is too
insignificant to be sufficient , and too insufficient to be accurately calculated . It is clear to me that a considerably greater benefit would accrue to the fund of Benevolence if tenders were invited for the privilege oi printing for the -work , & c , say for three years , if the contract was thrown open to the Masonic Book trade . By the present system a monopoly is
created which does good to no one , anil which practically impedes the sale of the Calendar , while it strikes all business men as both inadequate and peculiar . V am only speaking now on business principles , and am regarding the matter simply from a business point of view . Neither Freemasonry nor the Grand Lodge is intended in my opinion for individuals , but for the brotherhood , and
I write without any personal consielerations whatever , but simply as a matter of commercial policy . All our arrangements with respect to Granel Lodge supplies should be conducted in a fair , free , open market , inasmuch as it is greatly to the advantage of the community , ( just as it is of individuals for the matter of that ) , to conduct business arrangements on business principles alone .
If any explanation can be offered , of the " raison d ' etre " of the existing contract , I shall be happy to consider them , hoping that you will permit me to allude to them again in the Freemason . If my suggestions arc read by those in authority , perhaps some good may be done . I am , yours fraternally . BUSINESS .
FIDELITY ROYAL ARCH CHAPTER , No 3 . To the Editor of the " Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — Can you or any of your readers inform mc the present place of meeting of the Fidelity Royal Arch Chapter , No . 3 . I have le ; oked for it in vain , both in the Grand Lodge , and the Cosmopolitam Masonic Calendar ' s . Yours fraternally , R . F . G .
SCOTLAND . To the Editor of the " Freemason . " Dear ir and Brother , — Referring to the circular letter which you published in your last number , signed by Bro . John Morgan , of Glasgow , and the resolutions thereto subjoined , I have to state that it was from a general understanding induced by
statements made by Sir Michael Shaw Stewart himself that the requisition to Bro . lnglis to become his successor was promoted . Sir Michael , in his installation speech in Grand Lodge on St . Andrew ' s Day last year , expresscly stated that it woulel be the last year he would occupy the throne , and
in his speeches since he has made several similar statements . The members of Grand Lodge believed he meant what he said , and hence the requisition ta Bro . lnglis who would prove a popular and well qualified successor , and through long and meritorious services is well entitled , to the honour .
The resolutions of Bro . Morgan ' s party deprecate the proceedings taken for promoting Bro . lnglis' candidature . It is not said what these proceedings were . But they simply
Original Correspondence.
consisted in the issuing of a circular to members of Grand Lodge and the actual Masters and Warelens of lod ges , requesting Bro . lnglis to allow himself to be nominated for the chair . I am at a loss to see any wrong in this . In point of fact it is well known that but for certain side issues Sir Michael would not have been asked again to stand , and Bro . lnglis would have been unanimously elected his
successor . The letter and resolutions further set forth that it is necessary that Sir Michael should continue in office for another term , because , it is said , energetic measures were taken under his guidance to place the financial affairs of Grand Lodge in a satisfactory state . I am not aware that Sir Michael has by guidance or otherwise interfered with
the financial affairs of Grand Lodge . But certainly it he had done so earlier all the defalcations might have been avoided , for they took place during his first three years of office . We are also told by Bro . Morgan and his party that many unqualified brethren voted in the divisions which were taken at the last Grand Lodge meeting , and that
they were unqualified because their names were not on the roll in April last , when it closed for the year . But it was Bro . Morgan ' s own party who first tampered with that roll , and removed out from it the names of brethren who voted against his party's wishes , and it added the names of others , ignorant of the points at issue , to vote with it . It was out-generalled in
this manoeuvre , and it now loudly disclaims against it . The letter , however , of Bro . Morgan , he thinking it will suit his interests , again advocates an interference with the roll by recommending lodges to supersede their proxies , if they refuse to comply with the instructions given to vote as Bro . Morgan ' s party requests . Much fault too has been foundeel by Bro . Morgan ' s
friends because a certain section of Grand Lodge requested members to vote in support of its views . He is now doing the same thing . In point of fact , several of the Glasgow members were watched by their Glasgow friends , and found fault with for voting according to their convictions . Assuming that Bro . Morgan ' s party is right in its contention that those only on the roll in April last could vote
at the meeting of Grand Lodge , it does not follow that the Grand Lodge proceedings are null , for on a scrutiny disallowing these votes a large majority would still remain in support of the resolutions . The fact , therefore , of parties having improperly voted does not invalidate the proceedings , seeing that their votes were not required to carry the resolutions objected to . Yours fraternally , MASTER MASON .
CH \ RITY AND RELIEF . To the Editor oj the " Freemason . " Dear Sir anil Brother , — In looking through the columns of the Freemason , ol the 14 th inst , 1 was very much amused in reading the report of special meeting of St . John ' s Lodge , Stow , No 216 , to consider a circular , calling a meeting in Glasgow
wherein it states that there were thirty-two subscribers to said circular , consisting of twenty-nine brethren of the Glasgow province . I beg to inform Lodge 216 that there were only ten on said Committee of the Glasgow province , and they have committed an error which possibly they were led into by false representations . Again , look at the concluding sentence : " Resolved
therefore , that this lodge declines to countenance this meeting . " What an assumption from such a strong body , scarcely known , and consisting of such a large gathering as to be scarcely able to open the lodge for want of numbers .
If lodge 216 will look over the report of meeting in Glasgow , inserted in Scottish Freemason of the 13 th inst ., they will find said meeting turned out to be one of importance , supported by a large body of representatives from all parts of Scotland . Fraternally yours , SCOTIA .
OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE EXAMINATION . To the Editor of the " Freemasun . " Dear Sir and Brother , — I do not sec , in the list published in the Guardian , the name of the Royal Masonic Institution for Boys . Why not ? Perhaps Bro . Binckcs or Bro . Dr . Morris can explain and oblige . Yours fraternally , CLERIC US .
PROVINCIAL GRAND LODGE OF HAMPSHIRE AND THE ISLE OF WIGHT . To the Editor of the " Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — When writing to you to correct what seemed to me omissions in a letter of " Consistency , " criticising the recent appointments , I took the opportunity of expressing
a feeling which I know to prevail in this town , respecting those appointments , it was furthest from my thoughts to engage in any controversy on the point . "Consistency , " however , having apparently to his own satisfaction " settled" the Dep . Prov . Grand Master , in your last Satuiday's issue , turns his attention to my observations in a communication so utterly disingenuous that I am
constrained to ask you space for a reply . When Mark Twain ' s friend , the Admiral , was allowed to manufacture hbtory to suit himself , he was a potent opponent , we are told ; and once permit "Consistency" to cast loose from facts anil read the record after his own fashion , no punishment , it
seems , could well be too great fe > r me for having mildly suggested that of the lodges in Southampton receiving Prov . Granel honours at the last meeting , the one omitted was the Royal Gloucester , the senior loelge in the town whete Grand Lodge was held , and the third senior in th <* province .
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Original Correspondence.
But " D . D . " also provides the answer , by saying , "By their subscriptions they have acquired influence , which they arc entitled to use as to them may seem best . " Exactly so , the votes arc bought and paid for , whether through a London or provincial Steward matters not , the owner has a right to use them as he pleases . But when " D . D . " suggests , ( and with good reason ) , that a brother in such
a position is most likely to assist a case arising in the province , and within his knowledge , than one " unknown to him amidst the great maze of London , " I would say , the more need then of such an association as this , which will make it its business occasionally to extricate from the great maze and bring into daylight a deserving case , which might otherwise be too feebly supported .
The expression , " levelling down principle , " which "D . D . " twice ? uses in his letter , somewhat perplexes me , as it appears to convey some sort of reproach ; but I fail yet to see what there is in our organisation deserving of reproach . " Levelling down" is certainly not a " principle " of the London Masonic Charity As sociation . It can scarcely be applied to the junior and less influential members .
I observe that among the members of the Association are three brethren who can poll together in the course of a year at least 650 votes . These votes used for the benefit of a single candidate would occasionally be sufficient to ensure success . Brethren having this amount of influence at command may be supposed to have had also a large amount of experience in Masonic business ; but if they , and
such as they , are pleased to co-operate with others having but little influence for the benefit of candidates , I think it would be very ungracious to accuse them of countenancing a "levellingdown principle , " or doing that which is likely to prove injurious to the institutions , and cause our Secretaries any anxiety . On the contrary , I apprehend that their example will prove highly beneficial , by instilling a
spirit of emulation into the younger members of the Craft , and inducing them to take greater interest in , and give renewed support to , those grand institutions of which we have so much reason to be proud . Your " Irrepressible Correspondent" asserted recently that " padding " was acceptable at this time of year , so I won ' t apologise for the length of this letter , but subscribe myself , dear Sir and brother , yours faithfully ,
A JVIEMBER OF THE LONDON MASONIC CHARITY ASSOCIATION . P . S . I have noticeel also " H . L . ' s '' letter , in which he alludes to Bro . Perceval , but I think " H . L . " has only discovered a " mare ' s nest . "
To the Editor of the " Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother . Since the starting of the London Masonic Charity Association , there has been a feeling of jealousy and suspicion engendered , not only in the provincial bodies with identically the same object in view , anel which have been
formed for years , and whose example we arc following , or endeavouring to follow , after the scores of lessons they have taught us of the necessity for , anil the usefulness in combination for , the ends we have in view , not only in the provinces , but also in individual members of the Craft in the province of London , or metropolitan district . I will endeavour to find out the cause of irritation in both cases .
First , the provinces have been indebted to their success , in a considerable measure , not only by the combined efforts within themselves , but by the large number of London votes they have been able by individual influence , friendship , or otherwise-, to obtain from London members of the Craft , who thoughtlessly or wilfully blind to the exigencies of those immediately around them , fail to see
that the legitimate and natural use of the privileges obtained by their munificence is being drawn from them by the provinces , to whom the London cases have , as a rule , not the slightest interest , whose sole : thought is for themselves provincially , anil who feel jealous , and hurt that we have found out the error of our ways , and are at length endeavouring to profit by the long-taught lesson they have
put before us ; and so are likely to lessen their continually increasing disproportionate majority . With regard to individual London Masons , two reasons may be ascribed , the first I think too puerile ; to have found weight with many , viz : That they , as little gods , we re not consulteil before any of the oi polloi dared to move in such a matter , howevcrnecessary , without having consulted all anil every one
of these self-maelc deities . The other , which I take to be the true place where the shoe pinches , is the fear and extreme probability of their losing their long held influential individualism , as many of our brethren , of the highest integrity , most unimpeachable honour , long tried experience , and undoubted ability , have been entrusted by their own friends and acquaintances
and their friends again , with their several and combined votes , so by that means a very large amount of power is placed in the hands of one individual , the proper use of which rests entirely en his own judgment , which may be rightfully or wrongfully biassed by various causes . Very often these ve . tes go entirely away from the province in w hich they were raised , to which there- would be no objection
if the other provinces acted on the free traelc principle , and not on purely conservative tactics ; and if the case was pre-eminently urgent and deserving , but the predicate supposition being in the negative , London , to be true to herself , must adopt the same policy . This weakness is not only charactctistic of the English individual , but of the English nation , for hmv often do we read and
hear of thousands of pounds going freim England to relieve the distressed foreigner , while there : arc thousands of starving poor at our very door , anil 1 take it that the old adage , " that true charity begins at home , " is pretty near the mark in Masonry , as well as all other cases . The following . st . -1 listic .-1 l table for 18 7 8 will establish the true facts of , anil the necessity fur , the step that has been taken with regard to the Charities .
Original Correspondence.
SUBSCRIPTIONS . RECIPIENTS . I c SoSc c "j 3 ° S . 2 o " 3 -C ° O O £ . 8 -y "o . S ° ¦ " 13 -a c .-a a % J 2 igJ j 'i % l tn t—1 , * - ^ U *— ' v _ J i _ i rii- < C ^ H P , 5 PH w r = 5
£ £ £ R . M . B . I . ... 6012 5028 9 8 4 6 9 16 9 100 R . M . I . Boys 7487 5313 2174 49 109 60 R . M . I . Girls 5577 4891 686 72 116 44 Total 19 , 07615 , 232 3844 190 394 204
The equitable proportion Majority for would be : — London . R . M . B . I . 129 100 20 R . M . I . Boys 86 72 14 R . M . I . Girls 102 86 16 317 267 50
I should think that these figures must convince the most sceptical of what combination has done for the provinces , and what individualism has failed to do for London . Yours fraternally , A VICE-PRESIDENT OF EACH OF THE INSTITUTIONS .
OUR GRAND LODGE CALENDAR . To the Editor of the " Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — As the time is drawing near for the appearance of our official Calendar , I am anxious to obtain a little information respecting one or two matters which appear to me , in all deference be it said , neither business-like in
themselves , nor leading to the advantage of the Fund of Benevolence . It would seem that for the " privilege " of printing the Masonic Calendar and Pocket-book , our worthy Bro . Spencer pays £ 20 per annum to Grand Lodge . A moiety of thatamount , £ 10 , was paid Nov . 7 th , 1877 , " for 1 S 78 , " so that I presume the contract is entered into for a term of years . This seems , then , to be the actual sum
that the Fund of Benevolence obtains for this great " privilege . " It might have been a fair payment years ago , but the increase of the Craft and the claims of trade must require altered arrangements , and should be represented by a far larger amount . One should like to know how this amount £ 20 is calculated , whether as a lump sum or as a royalty . In either case it is too
insignificant to be sufficient , and too insufficient to be accurately calculated . It is clear to me that a considerably greater benefit would accrue to the fund of Benevolence if tenders were invited for the privilege oi printing for the -work , & c , say for three years , if the contract was thrown open to the Masonic Book trade . By the present system a monopoly is
created which does good to no one , anil which practically impedes the sale of the Calendar , while it strikes all business men as both inadequate and peculiar . V am only speaking now on business principles , and am regarding the matter simply from a business point of view . Neither Freemasonry nor the Grand Lodge is intended in my opinion for individuals , but for the brotherhood , and
I write without any personal consielerations whatever , but simply as a matter of commercial policy . All our arrangements with respect to Granel Lodge supplies should be conducted in a fair , free , open market , inasmuch as it is greatly to the advantage of the community , ( just as it is of individuals for the matter of that ) , to conduct business arrangements on business principles alone .
If any explanation can be offered , of the " raison d ' etre " of the existing contract , I shall be happy to consider them , hoping that you will permit me to allude to them again in the Freemason . If my suggestions arc read by those in authority , perhaps some good may be done . I am , yours fraternally . BUSINESS .
FIDELITY ROYAL ARCH CHAPTER , No 3 . To the Editor of the " Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — Can you or any of your readers inform mc the present place of meeting of the Fidelity Royal Arch Chapter , No . 3 . I have le ; oked for it in vain , both in the Grand Lodge , and the Cosmopolitam Masonic Calendar ' s . Yours fraternally , R . F . G .
SCOTLAND . To the Editor of the " Freemason . " Dear ir and Brother , — Referring to the circular letter which you published in your last number , signed by Bro . John Morgan , of Glasgow , and the resolutions thereto subjoined , I have to state that it was from a general understanding induced by
statements made by Sir Michael Shaw Stewart himself that the requisition to Bro . lnglis to become his successor was promoted . Sir Michael , in his installation speech in Grand Lodge on St . Andrew ' s Day last year , expresscly stated that it woulel be the last year he would occupy the throne , and
in his speeches since he has made several similar statements . The members of Grand Lodge believed he meant what he said , and hence the requisition ta Bro . lnglis who would prove a popular and well qualified successor , and through long and meritorious services is well entitled , to the honour .
The resolutions of Bro . Morgan ' s party deprecate the proceedings taken for promoting Bro . lnglis' candidature . It is not said what these proceedings were . But they simply
Original Correspondence.
consisted in the issuing of a circular to members of Grand Lodge and the actual Masters and Warelens of lod ges , requesting Bro . lnglis to allow himself to be nominated for the chair . I am at a loss to see any wrong in this . In point of fact it is well known that but for certain side issues Sir Michael would not have been asked again to stand , and Bro . lnglis would have been unanimously elected his
successor . The letter and resolutions further set forth that it is necessary that Sir Michael should continue in office for another term , because , it is said , energetic measures were taken under his guidance to place the financial affairs of Grand Lodge in a satisfactory state . I am not aware that Sir Michael has by guidance or otherwise interfered with
the financial affairs of Grand Lodge . But certainly it he had done so earlier all the defalcations might have been avoided , for they took place during his first three years of office . We are also told by Bro . Morgan and his party that many unqualified brethren voted in the divisions which were taken at the last Grand Lodge meeting , and that
they were unqualified because their names were not on the roll in April last , when it closed for the year . But it was Bro . Morgan ' s own party who first tampered with that roll , and removed out from it the names of brethren who voted against his party's wishes , and it added the names of others , ignorant of the points at issue , to vote with it . It was out-generalled in
this manoeuvre , and it now loudly disclaims against it . The letter , however , of Bro . Morgan , he thinking it will suit his interests , again advocates an interference with the roll by recommending lodges to supersede their proxies , if they refuse to comply with the instructions given to vote as Bro . Morgan ' s party requests . Much fault too has been foundeel by Bro . Morgan ' s
friends because a certain section of Grand Lodge requested members to vote in support of its views . He is now doing the same thing . In point of fact , several of the Glasgow members were watched by their Glasgow friends , and found fault with for voting according to their convictions . Assuming that Bro . Morgan ' s party is right in its contention that those only on the roll in April last could vote
at the meeting of Grand Lodge , it does not follow that the Grand Lodge proceedings are null , for on a scrutiny disallowing these votes a large majority would still remain in support of the resolutions . The fact , therefore , of parties having improperly voted does not invalidate the proceedings , seeing that their votes were not required to carry the resolutions objected to . Yours fraternally , MASTER MASON .
CH \ RITY AND RELIEF . To the Editor oj the " Freemason . " Dear Sir anil Brother , — In looking through the columns of the Freemason , ol the 14 th inst , 1 was very much amused in reading the report of special meeting of St . John ' s Lodge , Stow , No 216 , to consider a circular , calling a meeting in Glasgow
wherein it states that there were thirty-two subscribers to said circular , consisting of twenty-nine brethren of the Glasgow province . I beg to inform Lodge 216 that there were only ten on said Committee of the Glasgow province , and they have committed an error which possibly they were led into by false representations . Again , look at the concluding sentence : " Resolved
therefore , that this lodge declines to countenance this meeting . " What an assumption from such a strong body , scarcely known , and consisting of such a large gathering as to be scarcely able to open the lodge for want of numbers .
If lodge 216 will look over the report of meeting in Glasgow , inserted in Scottish Freemason of the 13 th inst ., they will find said meeting turned out to be one of importance , supported by a large body of representatives from all parts of Scotland . Fraternally yours , SCOTIA .
OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE EXAMINATION . To the Editor of the " Freemasun . " Dear Sir and Brother , — I do not sec , in the list published in the Guardian , the name of the Royal Masonic Institution for Boys . Why not ? Perhaps Bro . Binckcs or Bro . Dr . Morris can explain and oblige . Yours fraternally , CLERIC US .
PROVINCIAL GRAND LODGE OF HAMPSHIRE AND THE ISLE OF WIGHT . To the Editor of the " Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — When writing to you to correct what seemed to me omissions in a letter of " Consistency , " criticising the recent appointments , I took the opportunity of expressing
a feeling which I know to prevail in this town , respecting those appointments , it was furthest from my thoughts to engage in any controversy on the point . "Consistency , " however , having apparently to his own satisfaction " settled" the Dep . Prov . Grand Master , in your last Satuiday's issue , turns his attention to my observations in a communication so utterly disingenuous that I am
constrained to ask you space for a reply . When Mark Twain ' s friend , the Admiral , was allowed to manufacture hbtory to suit himself , he was a potent opponent , we are told ; and once permit "Consistency" to cast loose from facts anil read the record after his own fashion , no punishment , it
seems , could well be too great fe > r me for having mildly suggested that of the lodges in Southampton receiving Prov . Granel honours at the last meeting , the one omitted was the Royal Gloucester , the senior loelge in the town whete Grand Lodge was held , and the third senior in th <* province .