Correspondence.

greater , it might be conferred on the chair , or other office he had filled , in . perpetuity , connected with his name . Were this fully carried out there might be a separate heading of testimonials in the subscription lists , somewhat novel in its character , but far brighter and much more enviable than the glitter of any jewel . While on the subject of Masonic Charities , I would

further suggest to the various Boards that the time has arrived when another synopsis , still more comprehensive than the one issued some years since , might be again circulated with advantage . I can speak from experience ,. and the increased funds can still moro strongly testify , to the groat good which sprang from tho one named , especially in the provinces , where the Charities were little known .

, Another thought has long occupied my mind , as to : whether it might not be advisable to make a regulation that every member should , through his subscription to his lodge or chapter , contribute to each of the Charitied . I feel assured this would be satisfactory to the brethren , as all would theii have the opportunity of helping in the ¦ good work ; nor do I think it would interfere with the

sums collected at tho Festivals , while the Charities would gain an amount which might soon render elections unnecessary , " a consummation devoutly' to be Avished . " To ventilate the question still further , I would suggest half-a-crown as the annual subscription to each Charityan inconsiderable sitm for each member , but wtich would

produce a total of surprising magnificence , without at all , in my opinion , checldng voluntary effort . I may add that I haA'e named this both to London and provincial brethren , many of whom thought it practicable , and all that it was worthy of consideration . I should only be too glad to see it adopted , and produce the benefit to the Masonic Charities which I feel convinced it would confer . ' . . , I am , dear Sir and Brother , yours fraternal ! v , November 14 th , 1863 . . P . M .

The Glamorgan Lodge And Re-Initiation.

THE GLAMORGAN LODGE AND RE-INITIATION .

TO THE EDITOR OP TUB MEEMASON 3 MAGAZINE AND MASOXIC 311111101 * . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —Although for many years a constant reader of j'our interesting journal , I have never troubled you with any criticisms upon any . of the vai-ious Subjects therein so ably discussed . Nevertheless , as an old member of the same province as tlie brethren of the Glamorgan LodgeI cannot allow the extraordinary t

, repor contained in your last number to pass without recording my protest against a proceeding which I consider unconstitutional , Masonically illegal , and contrary to , as well as subversive of , the very principles of Freemasonry .

Upon the scanty information of your report I will not attempt to discuss the merits of this particular case ; but taking the bare fact into account that a bond fide brother Mason , regularly initiated into Freemasonry in one lodge of this province , has been ( nominally ) re-initiated in another lodge in the same province , regardless of tho viva voce protest of the Past Master , who had himself

initiated him , I cannot view the proceeding in the light of a " farce , " but a seVious scandal upon our Order . Had the offence been committed by a very young lodge , inthe absence of every brother of Masonic standing , it might have passed with a slight reprehension ; but , taking place in the oldest lodge in the province , and in the presence of the Right Worshipful Provincial Grand

Master and his principal officers , I trust those dissentient brethren who felt so much aggrieved as to leave the lodge will lose no time in laying the whole matter before the Board of General Purposes . Yours fraternally , E . G . Swansea , November 18 th , 1863 . P . S . —There was an evident misprint in your report , Aberdeen being substituted for Aberdare .

The Antiquity Of Masonic Degrees.

THE ANTIQUITY OF MASONIC DEGREES .

10 THE EDITOE OT THE ? KEEjrASOS-s' MAGAZBfE AHD MAS 02 JI 0 HIKIiOn . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , — -I should be unwilling sosoon again to trespass on your limited space , and the indulgence of your readers , did I not feel that the letters of "Delta" and "Rosa Crucis , " in your impression of to-day , require some sort Of notice . I will endeavour tomake my present communication as brief as possible ,, since

, like a far abler controversialist of this century , I feel that we have mutually " vindicated our expressedopinions ; " and , as we have probably already written moreon the subject than tho brethren will be willing toread , we may take the hint , and quietly withdraw from the contest . 1 . With respect to " Delta , " I cannot hope to follow

him among " Egyptian Pastaspheri , " or " the Brahmins and Chaldasans , " or the " Sons of Noah , " or the agreeable " assassins , " or the "Three Templar Classes , " or even " tho Maccabees . " It is sufficient for me that "Delta " gives up , in verystrong language , too , the Masonic Knights Templar , and , admits that the Craft degrees and the Royal Arch , degree are more ancient than the Masonic Knights Templar .

" Delta" seeniSjif I understand his language , to fallback ,, however , on the Templar Degree , perpetuated in the"Ancient and Accepted Rite ; " and there I am quitecontent to leave him . Will he , however , in conclusion , excuse me for asking his authority for the statement , that the Old York Masons claimed Baldwin of Jerusalem as the author of

their privileges ? Where is this to be found ? Much has'been written and put forward as . "York . Masonry" and the "York Rite" which has not , and never had , the slightest authoritative connection with it ; . and I suspect that " Delta" has fallen into the common error of relying on insufficient authority , and of

accepting the spurious ritual of some vain Masonic neologist in the ancient traditions and customs of the Order . I have no doubt that " Delta" has seen this statement , but the question I ask is , Where ? Then we shall see what sort of an authority ib really is , since , as far . as I know , nothing of the sort is known or claimed in theoldest and most genuine tradition of York working . I may well leave our controversy here , as " Delta" hashimself admitted everything I have , so far , contended for .

2 . In answer to " Rosa Crucis , " I regret having , as he says , unintentionally misrepresented his words . But , even now , I do not understand his argument to be anything different . He makes a distinction at the outsetbetween the " Knightly Orders" and the " Chivalric Degrees , " but later on he alludes to the ceremonies under the authority of the Grand Conclave , and the ritual still

observed in two encampments he names . What I said I now repeat , that if their rituals be notthe real rituals of the Orders whoso name they bear , they are worse than useless for the purposes of this controversy ; and if they be , they still leave tho question undecided , whether Craft Masonry preceded the Knightly Ordersor the KnihtlOrders were the oriin of Craft

, gy g Masonry . That the Masonic Knights Templar do not retain theancient ritual of the Templars of old , I have already expressed my humble , but deliberate opinion ; and the same may be said of the Knights of St . John , aud any other so-called Orders . " Rosa Crucis" talks of chivalric degreesand speaks

, of Red Cross Knights and the Rose Croix . I makebold to ask him when were the Red Cross Knights instituted , since there is no trace of them in the best histories of chivalry ? " Rosa Crucis" also puts forward the Ancient and Accepted Rite ; but he must allow me to add , what he very well knows , that its formalised system is of a very recent date .