India.

BRO . ABEOTT had strong objections to tho initiation of Hindoos ou social grounds , and was of opinion that arguments founded on such grounds did demand serious attention . As an English Mason , Bro . Abbott would not enter any lodge in which he would come into association with those who could not be properly obligated , and who , lie could speak from long experience in India , despised Christians and Christianity . It the natives of India could get up lodges of their own , they might

do so ; but they were widely separated in many respects from Europeans . Bro . C . PIEPARD— "Right Worshipful Grand Master ancl Worshipful Brethren , the question now brought before the District Grand Lodge is one of very considerable importance , and in discussing it , I trust that , while no one will shrink from expressing his sentiments frankly and fearlessly , no one among us will forget that in this , as in all other discussions , calmness and

moderation will be our most valuable aids in attaining to a just ami wise decision . Before , however , addressing myself directly to the question before us , I would take leave to reply to a remark which fell from the worshipful brother ( Abbott ) who has just sat clown . The worshipful brother appeared to me to labour under the impression that the W . M . of Lodge St . John had said that , in the absence of any other grounds of objection , brethren should notin the case of Hindoo or Mahomedan

candi-, dates for initiation , allow themselves to be swayed by any merely social objection . The W . AI . of Lodge St . John , with whose sentiments on this subject I am perfectly familiar , did not intend to , and in fact did not , commit himself to any such proposition . Social considerations , that is , a consideration of the habits , manners , education , and tone of thought of the candidate have always influenced , and must noccssarilly always influence ,

brethren in voting for the admission of a candidate , as it involves his becoming a member of their lodge ; and a neglect of such considerations can only imperil the harmony , good fellowship , and good feeling which , I trust , will long- distinguish ail Masonic gatherings . When our worshipful brother deprecated considering this question in a social point of view , ho did not for a moment mean or intend that private lodges , when applied to by Hindoos or other natives of this country , were not to bo at perfect liberty to consult the feelings and preferences , or even

the prejudices , of their members , and to give weight to any objection to their admission , whether personal , social or otherwise , precisely as they would in tho case of any other individual . AA'hat lie intended to say , and in fact did say , was that merely social objections to a class , as to au individual , were properly to be considered by each private lodge by itself , and not by the District Grand Lodge . Tho vote of the District Grand Lodge , deciding that Hindoos were not , as such , disqualified from

admission into Masonry , would not constrain any private lodge lo admit a Hindoo against the wish of its members . The social prejudice , therefore , should not now be allowed to divert our minds from the general question ; and the personal objection which any worshipful brother present may unfortunately entertain to sitting at lodge , or in banquet , or otherwise associating with natives of this country , ought not in any way to influence him in voting upon the broad question of their admissibility

into the general Masonic body . " The question now before us is whether there is anything in the Constitution of English Masonry to which the admission of Hindoos into Masonry is repugnant . The worshipful brother who spoke last , unci whose remarks were based entirely on social considerations , ancl , I may add , national antipathies , wisely , I think , ancl fairly , refrained from making any

distinction between Mahomedans and Hindoos , and included both classes in his objection . But as Mahomeclans have been repeatedly admitted into Masonry , both in this country and in England , and as it has never been contended by any one that the Mahomedans of India are , in point of character or respectability , in any respect superior to the Hindoos , it appears to me that this objection lias long since been disposed of . It

appears to me , indeed , that so far as this ground is insisted upon , those who object to the initiation of natives of this country , ancl not those who would welcome them into -Masonry , are exposing themselves to the charge of innovation . Vor if we , by our votes to-night , record that , in the opinion of this District Grand Lodge , no native of this country is a fit or proper person to be made a Mason , then , so far as I am aware , for the first

time in the history of Masonry , the groat Masonic doctrine of the universal brotherhood of man will be trampled under foot by Freemasons . " At the time of the revival of Freemasonry in the Middle

Ages , when a Jew was . throughout Christendom , an object of hatred and scorn and distrust , our predecessors , the ancient Christian Masons , did not hesitate to hold out the hand of brotherhood even to the descendants and countrymen of the murderers of the Founder of their religion . Shall we , in the 19 th century , place a brand on upwards of one hundred millions of the human race , ancl say that , though the sun never set ' s on Masonry , in India , when it shines on Masons , it shall shine only

on pilgrims ancl exiles ? Apart from the ground that they are disqualified as a race and nation , the only objections I have heard raised this evening are , 1 st , that AVO cannot initiate Hindoos , because if they come to us professing to be pure Deists , they do not recognise any book in particular , or the volume of the Sacred Law , and a difficulty must therefore aviso in administering to them the oath of obligation ; ancl , 2 nd , that although they come to us professing to believe in only one Supreme

Being , yet they are in fact idolaters , as , in spite of all their professions , they , for the most part , if not all , permit poqjahs ancl other idolatrous rites ancl ceremonies , to bo performed in their houses . The first objection is open to the obvious answer , that while an obligation is essential , the particular mode of obligation , or the instrument used in the ceremony , is an accident dependent upon and regulated by circumstances . That the mode in whicli the oath of obligation is now administered

can be neither invariable nor essential , is patent when we remember that the oldest book of what we call the Old Testamentwas probably written by Moses after or very shortly before the exodus from Egypt , and that certainly no portion of it was received as the Volume of the Sacred Law until some time afterwards ; while , if we may trust in Masonic tradition , Moses and Aaron ancl Elcazor were Master Masons , duly initiated ,

passed and raised in an Egyptian Lodge of Freemasons , long previous to that period . It is clear , therefore , that when Moses and Aaron and Eleazor were made Masons , they were not obligated upon any portion of what we now receive as the Volume of the Sacred Law , and probably on no particular writing whatsoever . The essential part of an obligation is , that it is binding on the conscience of the recipient ; and , in my opinion , when a candidate , after producing satisfactory testimony that he bears the reputation of au honest ,

honourable , ancl truthful man , comes to us and solemnly declares that ho is free , ancl that he believes in one God , we ought to be satisfied with his taking any obligation which he affirms to be binding on his conscience : ancl I can see no distinction between greater and less obligations . The simple affirmation of au honest man is binding on him , and nothing can be more than binding . " As to the second objection , it can only he a valid one if we

are also to think that no man can be said really to grasp a great truth unless he is prepared to run amuck against all who disagree with him , and that because he is satisfied that idols are puppets , ancl idolatry a vain thing , he is bound thereupon to shock all true religious feelings and prejudices of his family and countrymen , and not satisfied with the liberty conceded to him to think as he pleases , he is to force every one connected and dependent upon him to think and act in the same manner that

he does . " The prophets of the Jews were not singularly remarkable for the liberality of their sentiments on religious subjects . In the matter of idolatry , I think scarcely any , even of the brethren who have spoken this evening , would profess to hold views more rigid than those entertained by the Jewish prophet Elisha . Yet after Naaman , the captain of the host of the King of Syria ,

had declared his belief that there was no God in all the earth but in Israel , —a dogma , the truth of which , I may observe parenthetically , no Mason believing in an omnipresent Supreme Being can unreservedly admit , —after , as I have said , Xaaman had declared his adhesion to the God of Israel and of Elisha , and had prayed for two mules' burden of earth to carry with himI presumeto Syriaand then somehow to facilitate his

, , , worship of tho true God , we are told that he thus addressed the prophet— ' In this thing the Lord pardon thy servant , that when my master goeth into the house of Rimmon to worship there , anil be leinieth on my hand , and I bow myself in the hoiiseofRimnion ; when I bow clown myself in the house of Rimmon , the Lord pardon thy servant in this thing . ' And what did the prophet do ? Did he reproach him for his

halfheartedness ? Did he tell him it was not sufficient to he a believer unless he was also prepared to become a martyr ? Xo , it is written—He said unto him , ' Go in peace . ' Are we , brethren , to be more exacting than Elisha ? Are we to insist that every