" Justitia" And The "Masonic Observer."

has ever considered it other than proper and decorous , to address a member of the fraternity as "Sir and Brother . " Surely Lord Carnarvon had forgotten the Antient Charges . In connection ivith this matter I may advert to a letter in thc Observer , signed " Frederick Binckes , " in which a characteristic attack is made upon you , the fidelity of your reports is impeached , and it is charged against you that in your report of the proceedings of last Grand Lodge , " all mention

is omitted of the disgracefully offensive remark of Bro . Havers , ivhich led to the regretted withdrawal of Lord Carnarvon . " The remark is quoted above , aud the Brethren can judge for themselves how far it deserves the silly and unmasonic epithet applied to it by Bro . Binckes . But AA'hat will thc Brethren say ivhen I . add , that I have referred to your report , and find thc remark of Bro . Havers there given , and agreeing word tor jvord ivith thc report of the Masonic Observer , from Avhich I have just quoted . Rumour tells a funny story about this report in the Observer ; and Bro . Binckes ' s letter , ivhich hears date the 10 th Dec , seems to confirm the truth of the strange story ivhich has been circulated .

1 UOAV come to the Hall and Tavern question—and if I do not repeat the hope that this ivill not be made a party question , it is because I feel certain that it is one ivhich has been so heartily , greeted by the Craft generally , that there is no need to care for the moi-e of the Observer faction , who -will , of course , oppose this and any other improvement not suggested by one of themselves . Look at their article in the present number . They endeavour unjustly to set this up as a question of London brethren versus provincial brethren , and coolly insinuate that the carrying it out will " exhaust thc

fountain of Masonic charity for many long years to come . " Of course they ivell knoiv that this ' is not so ; indeed they publish the statement made in introducing thc subject to Grand Lodge , that " of course we cannot ( ouch the Fund ol' Benei-olencc . " ixot one penny collected for the purposes of charity ivill be available for the HaU and Tavern—why , then , this misrepresentation ? The difficulty sought to be raised about the architects has heen ably discussed both in and out of Masonry . There neither can nor will be difficulty on this headand if Brethren ivill onlwait

any , y till thc _ Board of General Purposes submits its scheme , they may then discuss it full y , aud decide upon the best course to be pursued . In thc meantime , the antient Craft has surely not become so degenerate , that they must needs apply to the profane world for assistance in tlie building of their own home .

. Lastly , as regards myself . I am called " a meteor of epistolary polemics , who coruscates in the atmosphere of the newly organized magazine . " ( Don't I recognize the classical and long-drawn phraseology . ) I cannot help the Avritcr ' s anger , but it . should not blind his judgment and memory . The chiefs of the Executive never did admit that Canadian differences had their origin in apathy and insolence displayed at home ; aud when did the Grand Master insist ( as the writer alleges ) 011 the necessity of an official notification of thc union of the tAvp Canadian Grand Lodges being laid before the Grand Lod

ge of England , before the latter could formally recognize their neiv Brethren ? On whom does he seek to impose by these misstatements , burely if the Observer party wish to escape the charge of insincerity in the course ivhich they took as to the Canadas , they Avi ! l , ' now that the matter is concluded , abstain from raking up bygones . The Grand Lodge of England , m defiance of thc factions conduct of the Observer party , has determined upon recognizing the Canadian Grand Lod ge ; and the true friends of Canada ivill bury the hatchet , and forget all past discords . If the writer in the Observer will only take the trouble to read my letter ,