Original Correspondence.

Original Correspondence .

Tho Editor is not responsible for the opinions expressed by Correspondents . ( To the Editor of The Freemason . ) DEAR SIR AND BROTHER . —Did it ever occur to you to furnish your readers with literary " pabulum "

in the shape of a lengthy article on a subject on which , from the very outset , you candidly admitted your entire ignorance ? In reply to your surprise at such an apparently ridiculous question , allow me to draw your attention to an article in the Daily Telegraph of Monday

last ( May 16 th ) , written or . the occasion of the election of the Earl de Grey and Ripon as Grand Master . The naivete is charming with which the writer of the article commencing " The Freemasons , " & c , informs the readers of the Telegraph that he is an " outsider , " and has not had the

" honour of initiation in the Masonic mysteries , whatever they may be . " His " dread "is great lest , " blundering on the true solution , " suspicion should " fall upon any member of the Craft , " and the placingofsome " elderly gentleman ( why an' elderly gentleman ' any more than a young one ? I always

thought , sir , that discretion was more an attribute ofage than youth ) upon a gridiron in the Freemasons ' Tavern in Long-acre , " to be " nicely broiled by cooks in little white aprons , & c , " follows as the result . The writer , after beginning by admitting ( quite unnecessarily , so far as Masons are concerned ) that

he knows nothing about the subject he is writing upon , then proceeds to make the following interesting deduction : — " Considering that the secret has been known to millions for some scores of centuries , it is in open violation of all we know of the general ' lcakincss " of human nature that some false or indiscreet brother should not have let it out in the course of so

long a period . " Having disposed of this question in a manner doubtlessly to his entire satisfaction , he then draws the following inference : " That nothing has been disclosed , because there has been nothing to disclose , " which hypothesis serves him as the basis of his argument .

The able writer then goes on to inform the world in general , and the readers of the Daily Telegraph in particular , that be " neither knows nor cares whether Aristotle , Bacon , Newton , Laplace , Faraday , Dante , or Shakespeare were or were not Freemasons . " " Such men can help Masonry—Masonry

cannot help them . " The first part ot this latter assertion I am quite willing to admit ; the last part I repudiate as false /// tola . Masonry is capable of helping even wise and illustrious men , more so perhaps than ordinary plodding mortals of small intelligences . This may appear strange and

paradoxical to " outsiders , " but not , so , however , to members of the Craft . I shall pass over without comment a lot of irrelevant remarks upon architects and engineers , in which the writer seems to have succeeded in confusing himself so much that be was evidently unable

to distinguish between . Speculative and Operative Masons . Like most " Cowans" when writing about Freemasonry , be cannot refrain from occasionally clothing his observations in slightly satirical language . No doubt lhe Craft ought and will feel honoured at

being the subject of an article in one ofthe leading London papers , yet I cannot help thinking that had the writer been a little more judicious in propounding problems and supplying the solutions himself , be would have acted wiser . It is selfevident that he is entirely ignorant about

Freemasonry ; therefore , why bold up to ridicule , in ever so slight a degree , a body of men whose objects , be himself admits , " are not only harmless but . benevolent . " Perhaps the day may come when our friend may form a very different opinion of lhe '' mysteries and mummeries " which " afford endless

amusement to many well-meaning men . " If charity be found as the basis of our " amusements , " and brotherly love be cemented by our meetings , we can afford to bear the rather disparaging remarks of " outsiders . " In conclusion , I trust and believe that the author

of this article is far from being hostile to us Freemasons as a body , only the ' ¦ secret " portion of the business is a little irritating to non-masons . Yet there is no cause given for this feeling . Every upright and honest man can learn the " mysteries of Freemasonry" if he is so inclined ; therefore , v .-hv

should Masons " throw open their doors to the world ? '' Does any other society , club , or body of men " throw open their doors to tlie world ? ' ' From the moment of our doors being so ' thrown open , " Masonry must perforce cease to

exist . I Ins is beyond dispute . The virtues ; md excellencies of the Craft require carefully fostering and cherishing , so that they may bring forth good fruit in the shape of charity , brotherly love , and emulation amongst the brethren to outstrip each

Original Correspondence.

other in good works and to lead pure and irreproachable lives . Turn Masonry loose and unguarded on the wide world , and Masonry would soon be extinct . To every man of " good report " the lodge door will never be closed . Surely this is sufficient ! We cannot be expected to trumpet

forth to the world our peculiar " mysteries and mummeries , " and generally insist on sharing our " secrets " with everyone we meet . Our closing our doors to the world and being able to keep our " secrets " to ourselves really appears to constitute the chief cause of this plainly

evinced soreness on the part of any writer , not a Mason , who may condescend to notice us . Yet when compared with the vast amount of charity bestowed every year by Freemasons , these faults—if faults they are—sink into utter insignificance .

If the means are harmless in procuring a good end , i . e . charity , the result must be satisfactory . I am , dear Sir and Brother , Newcastlc-on-Tyne , May 17 , 1870 . J . G . [ We quite agree with our correspondent in the views he so ably expresses . —ED . F . ]

" HEAR THE OTHER SIDE . " ( To the Editor of The Freemason . ) DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —Permit me to disclaim an imputation which I am surprised that any brother should have sought to put upon me without having the slightest foundation whereon to rest it . Bro . Jacob Norton , at page 224 of your paper , says , in an apparently ill temper , that in mv response

to your article on A Step m the Right Direction ( Feb . 19 th ) 1 "patted the Jew on the back , " an expression which can only mean that I had resorted to unworthy means for the purpose of cajoling him . I will not dwell upon this , however , as I dare say that when he recovered his temper he felt the impropriety and injustice of such an allegation . What

I wish to disclaim is the desire he imputes to me of "justifying the introduction of allusions to Christian saints and Christian doctrines into the work of the lodge , " which he , r . s I think , mistakenly alleges to have been the object of your article , "A Step in the Right Direction . " But not satisfied with imputing to us an object so

inconsistent with the constitution and foundation of Masonry as this obviously is , he advances a step , and says my meaning clearly was , " that no Jew ought to feel offended at a Christian brother constantly vaunting the superiority of Christianity over Judaism . " His feelings must certainly have run away with his judgment when be made this

averment , otherwise he could not so have misinterpreted my words , " surely no conscientious Jew could take offence at the avowal , by any brother , of his Christian convictions , or of his readiness , if need be , to stand up in their defence . " What is there here to justify Brother Norton in alleging that I advocated " constantly vaunting the superiority of Christianity

over Judaism'' ? Had I left my proposition wholly unguarded , the interpretation put upon it would have been quite unwarranted ; but I added , " always supposing that it is not done unnecessarily , or in an offensive manner . " May I add , without offence ( for I do not mean any ) , that Bro . Norton exhibits something of the feeling and spirit of the existence

of which I was writing and regretting , viz ., the intolerance with which we are too apt to regard each other ' s religious convictions and professions . He says wc " must take human nature as it is , " which might have been said at anytime ; as when the pagan Roman Empire was persecuting Christians to the death , and Christians in England and other

parts of Christendom were persecuting Jews to the death . Hut how , then , should human nature ever have become belter and more tolerant than it exhibited itself in that detestable work of persecution ? My judgment may be at fault , but I believe that the undue reserve that we show towards each other—Jew and Christian — and the squcamishness we

exhibit , lest in our intercourse with each other wc should give offence by letting drop a word which savours of religious convictions , is one cause of the intolerance that still exists amongst us . Why should not our ' brotherly love'' be strong enough to endure the thought that our Jewish brother deems his

Judaism to be superior to our Christianism— his brotherly love lo endure the thought that wc deem our Christianism superior to his Judaism ? We each , of course , deem ourselves to have the true faith ; but it does not therefore follow that wc should be ' constantly vaunting its superiority , " and thus giving rise to ill-feeliiv >

I do not pretend to answer for you , sir and brother , in what you wrote on " a step in the right direction . " You are quite able to defend yourself , but I may say that if I had interpreted your meaning to be that Christians should act so unwisely and

intemperately as is imputed , ; , i " vaunting th . " superiority of their religion over Judaism "; or that " our Jewish brethren should make it a practice , nightly , while in the lodge , to flourish the superiority of the Mosaic rebgion" ; or that a Roman Catholic should " nightly expatiate on the sublimity of the doctrines of the

Original Correspondence.

real presence , the immaculate conception of the Virgin , the infallibility of the Pope , & c , " I should not have given my poor approval of " the spirit " which the article breathed , or " the object at which it aimed , " as being " accordant with the true principles of Masonry , " but should , had I noticed it at

all , have expressed my entire dissent from it . I believe , however , that any one who can read or converse on what Brother Norton calls " the somethings" which at present divide us , without that perturbation of mind which is too often experienced , and that fastidiousness which is too often evinced by even such intelligent men as Bro . Norton , will

feel as I do—that there is a wide interval between the " vaunting of the superiority" of our own " somethings" over those of our brethren who dissent from us , and unhesitatingly and unequivocally avowing our individual convictions , whether on religion or anything else , " always supposing that it is not done unnecessarily or in an offensive manner . " WILLIAM CARPENTER .

GRAND OFFICERS . ( To the Editor of The Freemason . ) SIR , —I read your remarks under this head in last week ' s number with all satisfaction , I am , however , desirous to say a word or two on the undue appointment to Grand Office of Provincial Masons .

That these latter should occasionally be thus distinguished I freely admit , but I trust it will always be borne in mind by the " powers that be , " that Provincial brethren have places of honour in their respective districts , the like of which is only offered to those in town through the medium of Grand

Lodge . True , the latter when attained is very grand , but when on the other hand the average of its attainment by London Masons is from sheer excess of their number far less than that of Provincial Grand Office by our country brethren , and again it must not be forgotten that beside the

additional dues they of the metropolis pay , the duties that fall on and are cheerfully undertaken by them are with respect to the Craft at large exceptionally heavy . Not only do they conduct and sustain Grand Festival , but lhe dry business of the Craft as carried out by the Board of General Purposes , and last if not least , the management of

the various Masonic charities , arc mainly , indeed almost entirely worked by London Masons , who thus wilh the lion ' s share of the labour , should not it appears to me be deprived of a very full and due proportion of that reward , the hope of which sweetens the labour so performed . Let me add that I am a Provincial Initiate , now residing in town , and raav perhaps therefore sign myself , AMPHIBIOUS .

LODGE ST . JOHN , MELROSE . ( To the . Editor of The Freemason . ) DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —Referring to some remarks contained in the historical report of St . John ' s Lodge , Glasgow , given at page 1 S 9 of THE FREEMASON , Bro . " c I . Paton says : " anything

coming from Bro . W . P . Buchan does not come from him in an authorised manner from the LodgeSl John , Melrose , and are merely words of his own . " Now , I should like to know what Bro . Paton can make of this wonderful statement of bis ? He cannot point out any mistakes that Bro . Buchan made

anent Melrose ; lhe report contained a statement of facts , versus dreams , and so far as the books of Melrose St . John ' s Lodge , are concerned , if any books really belonging to it older than 1674 have been discovered since the St . John's ( Glasgow ) , deputation were there , wc shall be glad to admit

such to be really the case , whenever wc are duly satisfied with sufficient proof . I saw the Secretary of the Melrose St . John ' s Lodge , on two different occasions , firstly , as one of the deputation from Glasgow , afterwards , when accompanying the summer trip of the Glasgow St .

John's Lodge to Melrose . At the latter date the Secretary explained that he would ha \ c spent more time with us on the former occasion only he was unwell , See ., and he never spoke then of having anything older man 1674 . As to the manufactured legend of the Melrose St . John ' s Lodge building

the old Abbey of Melrose , ol which we still see the ruins , with John Murdoas their first Grand Master , A . . 1136 , in the reign of David I ., that is simply nonsence , as is explained at page 1 S 9 . Lastly , as to Bro . Baton's belief that the Melrose St . John's Lodge is " older than any other lodge in Scotland , "

it seems to mc that said idea is about as purely imaginary as some others he has given voice to lately . However , let him show the foundation upon which his faith rests , and then we shall know what to make of it . The majority of the Melrose Masons ,

I . can well believe , accept the story of John Murdo being their first Grand Master in A . l ) . 11 3 6 , 60 ; ., as a veritable fact : but said John Murdo was no more Grand Master of the Melrose St . John's Lodge in the reign of David the I ., than was Yours fraternally , W . W . BUCHAN .