Original Correspondence.

feeling * happily existing between thc brethren of Hampshire and those of thc Isle of Wight . The fact is that from thc signature book , containing 200 or 250 names , I selected all thc Provincial Grand and Past Provincial Grand Officers ; this resulted in tbe publication of 37 names , 7 of which represented lodges in the island , in which there are 4 working lodges , tbe remaining - 30 names representing lodges on tbe mainland , when they

number in all 23 . In the hurry of copying out these names I did not notice that the P . P . G . Oflicers of the Cowes and Medina Lodges had either unfortunately not been able to attend , or had omitted to sign the attendance book . I am , Sir and Brother , yours fraternally , J . G . Li : l- ' iaviti-:, P . G . Sec . Hants and Isle of Wight .

THE INSTALLATION OK THE M . W . G . MASTER . To the Editor ofthe Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — Seveial portraits of our M . W . G . M . being published , and in course of publication , in which different jewels are exhibited on his breast and banging from his neck , I

should like to know the actual jewels ( both Masonic and otherwise ) that he wore on his installation , as some I have seen on the portraits arc those belonging to Masonic Orders not recognised by the Grand Lodge of England . I am , Sir and Brother , yours fraternally , J SMITH , 1257 .

THE POWERS OF W . MASTERS . To Ihe Editor if the Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — I shall feel greatly obliged if you could in your next issue give me your opinion as to the extent of the control which a VV . M . possesses over his lodge , and what constitutes incapability of discharging the duties of his office

other than by death or removal—see Constitutions , Art . 6 , of Masters and Wardens of Lodges . It often happens , I imagine , that a Master is temporarily absent from his lodge on account of sickness or othei pressing emergency , and what I want to know is whether such absence deprives him of all power and authority over his lodge . Has the lodge , for instance , any right to r < -fuse to

obey his directions that he should be regularly furnished with a copy of the summons for each meeting , and a report of the proceedings thereat , in order that he may be kept acquainted with all that was going on during his absence . The length of the term of such absence would not , I apprehend , affect the question in the least degree , for if absence at all deprives a Master of authority over his lodge , he

would lose it as much by one day ' s absence from the place where the lodge meets as by an absence of several months . And if a Master ' s absence is so fatal to his authority , it follows , I think , that all the W . M . ' s of provincial and foreign lodges who attended H . R . H . ' s installation as M . W . Grand Master in April last lost all control over their respective

lodges during their absence from the places of meetings of their lodges , and their wishes and instructions would therefore be necessarily disregardetl ! Yours fraternally , AN A 11 sKNT W . M . 18 th August , 1875 . [ A very difficult question to answer . —ED . ]

GRIMSBY MASONIC HALL . To Ihe Editor of Ihe Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — On the 2 nd inst . I was present at the laying of the foundation stone of the Masonic Hall , Great Grimsby , and from the large gathering together of P . G . Officers , and seveial noted members of the Craft , I quite expected to see

a full account of that most interesting ceremony in your paper , and looked forward with impatience for this last week's number , and I was somewhat disappointed at not even a word being mentioned , even to say that the ceremony had taken place , especially when the stone was laid by one who had done so much for our province and for the Craft . I now beg to furnish you with one of our local

papers , and beg that you will give room in your valuable paper for at least a moiety of the report . I am , dear Sir and Brother , yours fraternally , THOS . Fnvicn , W . M . 1282 , P . G . S . of Lincolnshire .

[ We only received the account on Friday , nor had we any intimation from any brother of what was going to take place . We publish the report in this impression . Brethren who ask for reports to be inserted should attend to the notices , and not blame us for their own carelessness . —ED . ]

MASONIC INFIDELITY . To the Editor of the Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — I have read your criticism at page -jiio , but while cordially placing myself upon your side , I am not sure that the small heart and weak brain of " A Churchman" were really worthy of the lubbing down you give

them . I have no doubt but that this innocent genius imagines that he can reckon up the history of our globe upon his ten digits—thumbs included—in five minutes . The idea that rises up before my mind is that , having expended the large sum of sixpence sterling upon a pocket telescope , he has lately taken to studying astronomy , and upon directing bis gaze ' to the stars , with the big end of the

said telescope next his eye , for a better view , of course , he imagined himself to be a second Archimedes , and that with his pen for a lever , the telescope for a prop , and himself the power , he could easily overturn the world , especially the Masonic portion of it . 1 fear , however , he will not effect much , as the tools are too soft . Leaving " A Churchman " to digest his " abominable sentence , " and finish bis work at his leisure , 1 would re-

Original Correspondence.

spectfully call attention to thc various renderings given by Bro . Parkinson and yourself of what is requisite in a candidnte for Freemasonry . Bro . Parkinson says " Let a man ' s religion or mode of worship be what it may , he is not excluded from the Order , providetl he believe in the Glorious Architect of I leaven and Earth , and practise the sacred duties of morality . " You say , " In the lodge we

know nothing of religious disputations , differences , decrees , or dogmas ; we accept all good men who believe in the Great Architect of the Universe , ami revere the Revelation which He has given us . " Now , 1 would ask , Why this difference in the latter clause ? So far as I can Masonically judge , the words , " and revere thc Revelation which He has given us , " are an interpolation . Bro . Parkinson docs not

use them , and I do not see bow you could have penned th-m in a Masonic article unless through inadvertence Were tbey intentionally included I would feel inclined to say that their insertion caused the one part of the sentence to be contradictory to , or inconsistent with , the other part . We are told that a Mahommedan may make as good a Freemason as a Christian , but as " the Revelation " of the

one is not " the Revelation" of the other , it follows that thc less said about Revelation thc better for Masonic consistency , anil for their standing as Freemasons . If it were not for the cursed selfishness that makes a political tool of it , Religion would be left more to thc private home than it generally is . The world , however , is not yet old enough for that , hence the need of Freemasonry . Yours fraternallv , A FIU : I :. \ IASON .

[ The words animadverted upon are our own . See our leader . —En . ]

BRO . MAJOR BURGESS AND THE MARK . DEGREE , To the Editor if the Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — I find that in my last letter I omitted , under paragraph 3 , to say that of the persons there enumerated as forming the "Judicial Council , " Nos . 2 , 3 , 8 , y , and 10 , are all , to the best of my knowledge and belief , in addition

to Nos . 1 and 4 , " Knights of the Order of the Temple , " so called . It seemsiniportanl . as touching- " a Mark Master's " remarkable statement about that Council , that this fact should be stated . " A Mark Master , " apparently retreating from the po . sition , that I wrote a letter making a false charge , and marked that letter " private " in order to avoid thc

consequences of so doing , now says I have made " a disgraceful charge , " and " against a brother Mason . " 1 ask your readers , before they accept his statement , to require of bim good proof that my retirement from being a Masonic Templar ( a point proved by my letter to Mr . Tinkler , which he aids me by publishing ) , on account of certain conduct by a Masonic Templar , was merely a pretence and was not a

bona fide step on my part , sincerely taken by me on Masonic grounds , and in as a quiet a manner as was possible consistently -with thc c ' ncuinblanccs . 1 have not , as " A Mark "( Master" alleges , " refused to withdraw or prove , " to any Masonic body competent to deal with the matter , the true statement of the true cause of my retirement as a Masonic Templar . But I have refused , and

I do refuse , as a Mason and on Masonic grounds , to enter into any discussion respecting a Masonic matter with a body which has openly avowed itself to be not a Masonic body ; and from this position I have no intention of retreating . The charges brought against me by " A Mark Master " are new evidence of the use of the weapon

misrepresentation by " the Order of the Temple . " Until the close of the meeting of the "Judicial Council , " and afterwards , I was not aware that I had been charged by the " brotherhood of gentlemen " with ungentlemanlike conduct . The gushing virtue of " A Mark Master , " which prevents him from meeting me in " society , " is it is sad to think , unlikely to be put to the test ; and , as a comment upon his fear of

contamination , I may add , that since the meeting of the " Judicial Council , " which in February last went through the farce of trying me , I have had the pleasure of meeting , and also of corresponding , with more than one of the seven " Knights" who , with three other gentlemen , composed it , and their greeting has been as warm and as friendly as of yore . Further than this , let me ask , if my conduct as a

man and as a Mason has been such as " A Mark Master " wishes to make it appear , how comes it that , not daring to make a public statement of truth under his own name , in the cause of virtue , he takes refuge under a series of insinuations made anonymously , and with evident intention . ' How comes it , too , that if my conduct has been such as " A Mark Master " insinuates , his Mark brethren , the three

Past Grand Mark Masters who sat on the Judicial Council , acquiesced in its decision , which , as far as the Mark Degree could , upheld me as against the Temple by allowing me a month in which to retire from the Mark Degree ? Why did not these three gentlemen , careful of the honour of the Mark Degree , insist upon my sham expulsion by

" the Order of the Temple " being then and there carried out , as regards the Mark Degree , against mc ? I low comes it that , with a month allowed me for retirement , I have declined for a single moment to entertain the notion of obligatory retirement from a body against which conscience accuses me of 110 offence ?

My case is in truth a simple one , but it is not what " A Mark Master" wishes the Mark Degree to believe it to be . It is simply this , that since December , 1872 , when "The Order of the Temple " came into existence , I have , as a loyal subject , objected to it as a sham and unauthorised

Ortier of Knighthood , anti I have , as a Mason , objected to Masonry being used as a foundation for any such thing . If I had supportctl the new " Order , " would you have ever heard anything but good of me from " A Mark Master " and his friends ? I guess not . The " Order of the Temple " is , self-acknowledged , not a Masonic body . It has , how-

Original Correspondence.

ever , been glad enough to allow me and a large number of Masouic Templars ta attend its meetings , no doubt thinking thereby to establish a claim of allegiance upon thuswho may be weak enough to admit it . As a non-Masoni body it cannot be a party to a Masonic treaty ; and if the Mark Degree bad not been under thc rule of the ruler of the Temple no Grand Mark Master Mason would have dared to say that such a treaty could validly exist . Faithfully yours , CHAS . J . Bunoi-.- s .

SIR CHRISTOPHER WREN . To Ihe Editor if the Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — It is amusing to see how gallantly our good Bro . Buchan rides his hobby , though in this instance he seems to be tiding it literally to death . He will not have the pre-1717 Freemasonry at any price

and will shut his eyes to the facts of indubitable history . I ask him again thc question he has left unanswered , and to which , if he declines to reply , as far as I am con . cerned , and , 1 believe , as far as Bro . 1 Iughan is concerned , thc discussion must be closed in the " Freemason . " The question is this : —If your theory is correct , how do you git over the evidence of Dr . Plot , a non-Mason , and of Elias

Ashmole ? I confine myself to-day to these two points . Take Plot first of all . In the last quarter of the seven , teenth century he states that Freemasonry had existed for many years in Staffordshire , that gentlcmtn anti operatives belonged to it , practically , very much the same as it still is , anti that he had seen a parchment roll , no doubt one of our MS . Constitutions . He was not friendly altogether to

the Craft ; to use a French word , be seeks to " persifler " its pretensions to long antiquity , he criticizes its chronology , but of the fact of its existence , and that long prior to 1682 , he has no doubt . Is he speaking truth ? Could he be mistaken ? If it must be admitted , as I believe it must be , that he is speaking truth , nnd lhat he cannot hi mistaken ( he hail no motive to be so ) on such a subject ,

what becomes of Bro . Buchan ' s theory ? There is so little difference between Dr . Plot ' s description of the Staffordshire Freemasonry and our own even to-day , " mutatis mutandis , " that it is quite clear to any fair reader of his book that the order be alludes to is tha same as our own . So , too , as regards Elias Ashmole . " Society of Freemasons . " It is quite clear tlmt the Fteemasons to which he

belonged were not the London Masons' Company . It was an independent organization , and the meeting in Basinghall Street was a meeting , in all probability , as Bro . Hughan suggests , of the actual body from . which the ] Lodge of Antiquity descends . If so , I ask again , where is Bro . Buchan ' s theory ? There are many other points and evidences which might

be adduced to prove that a society did exist akin to our own altogether , and the fact that Freemasonry is alluded to as a secret institution in a public magazine ¦• uitc early la the { eighteenth century is , in itself , utterly fatal to Bro . Buchan ' s elaborate argument . I await his reply . With regard to Sir Christopher Wren , I do not lay so much stress on Aubrey as some do , but accept his

evidence as non-Masonic corroboration . I am somewhat inclined to believe that Sir Christopher Wren was a member of our Order earlier a good deal than Aubrey puts it , and that our histories are correct , and for this reason . Anderson in 173 8 states the fact distinctly , though I admit not so clearly in 172 , * , and as Sir Christopher Wren only died in 172 * , there must have been many living who knew

the fact to be as Anderson stated it or not . It is hardly likely that if Anderson had stated a deliberate untruth some one or other of the eager assailants of Freemasonry then would not have controverted his statement . Pace Bro . Buchan , 1 am inclined to ' . accept Anderson ' s statement , though I think we may yet . find better evidence of the fact . A MASONIC STUDENT .

LODGE OF INDUSTHY , GATESHEAD . To Ihe Editor if Ihe Freemason . Dear Sir anti Brother , — In the " Masonic Magazine " for this month , I sec a notice with several extracts from an old minute book of the Lodge of Industry , Gateshead , No . 142 , and amongst those extracts 1 see that several persons signed the rules

from 1732 to 1773 . I presume the lodge was then located at Swalwell , a village about 4 miles from Gateshead , at which place it was supposed 10 have been founded by som * of the operative Masons brought from the South of England by Sir Ambrose Crowley , who established large ironworks there , and at Winlaton Mill and Winlaton villages , near Swalwell . Can you tell by tbe old minute book if

anyone of the name of " George Heppel was amongst the number of the persons who signed the four columns iu the book ? He was residing either at Swalwell or Winlaton Mill about that time , anti was manager for the ironworks of Crowley , Millington , and Co . lie is an ancestor of mine , and am anxious to know if he was a Mason , as I think it is very likely , being one of the most influential men in the

village at that time . Yours fraternally , CHAS . ANDKHSON , P . M . 104 O . [ In answer to Bro . Anderson , I am happy to inform him that the name of George Heppel occurs twice . June 24 th , 1756 , Enters George Heppel , and his name also is found aniong those who became a " Highrodiam , " June 2 . * rd , , 750 . ] A . F . A . Woouroiti *

MINULES AND THEIR CONFIRMATION . To tht Editor ofthe Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — The view taken by our Bro . P . G . W . in the freemason " of 21 st August is not only legal but rational , viz ., that thc minutes of previous meeting are put for confirmation " that everybody may have an opportunity of recor -