Masonic Trouble In New South Wales

bo no exclusive jurisdiction thero as long as a solitary Lodge chooses to remain as it is . But supposing all tho Lodges there succumbed to the Grand Lodge ; ev-M then , should the said G . L . presume to pass unjust laws , or to r'lain old , unjust laws , under pretence of ancient landmarks , then discord and division will surely ensue . Tho factions thero will again

hurl at each other all the stereotyped Masonic old landmark epithets ; and after a cart-load of printed paper has been wasted in tho controversy , a convention will again be called ; the two or more G . Lodges Avill " again acknowledge each other as perfectly regular and orthodox , and then will come the farce of resignations of all the Grand Masters ; then altogether will elect ono G . M ., and trumpets will be sounded ,

healths will be drunk , glasses will be fired , and all will be jolly . This succession of Masonic tragedy and comedy will yet bo repeated again and again , aud it will only ceaso when tho brotherhood shall learn that Masonic laws must bo founded and based npon justice and not upon " ancient landmarks , " nor upon the dictum of so-called learned jurists .

Correspondence

CORRESPONDENCE

We do not hold ourselves responsible for the opinions of our Correspondents . We cannot undertake to return rejected communications . All Letters must bear the name and address of the Writer , not necessarily for publication , but as a guarantee of good faith .

" CHARITY : " IS IT GIVING ?

To the Editor of the FREEAIASON ' S CHUOXMCLE . DEAR SIR AXD BROTHER , —Brother Binckes has distinctly replied in tho affirmative to this query . Apropos of tho correspondence on the subject , will you permit me to give an extract from a lecture by Dr . Oliver , which seems to throw lig ht on tho question . Speaking of Charity , tho Doctor says : —

" I am awaro that there exists in the world , and I am afraid also amongst the brethren a mistaken opinion respecting this great principle of Freemasonry . The error arises from a snperficial consideration of tho true meaning of tho word Charity . Taken in its literal and moro obvious sense , it is supposed to be embodied in our benevolent institutions . ( This is Bro . Binckes's opinion . ) We have ,

however , a different name for tho sensible and material virtue Avhich operates so beneficially for the advantage of our widows , orphans , and brethren in distress . And that is Relief ; which constitutes one division of the principal Point of Freemasonry . Thus , if a person give profusely that his name may appear to advantage on a subscription list;—if self love incite him to acts of liberality that he may

receive the homage of those amongst whom he lives—would it be correct to attribute to snob a man the practice of true Masonic or Christian Charity ? Far from it . His benevolenco is laudable , because it is beneficial . But it is not Charity—it is Relief . To speak Masonically , it may be Faith ; it may bo Hope ; bnt it cannot be Charity . These aro distinct thintrs . An inspired writer has

enumerated them , and informed us which is the greatest . " Again , tho same quality may be exercised to establish a name or to acquire a reputation . . . . But if our benevolence havo only this end , Ave shall fall short of that beautiful—that Masonic Charity which believeth all things , hopeth all things , endureth all things . . . . Faith in God and Hope in futurity are not enough ; they must be

animated by Charity or the universal love of God and man ; else they will be ineffectual to draw aside the veil which conceals tho Holy of Holies from profane inspection ; they will fail to exalt us to that superb Temple above where the Great I Am eternally dwells amidst pure light and undivided charity . This is the charity which animates

tho system of Freemasonry . . . . Charity is the third step of the Masonic Ladder ; its foot based on revelation , and its summit concealed amidst the brilliant clouds of heaven . It consists of au ardent love of God united with an unfeigned affection for all his creatures . "

I am , yours fraternally , A BROTHER Christmas Eve , 1878 .

To the Editor of THE FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —It is very evident that your correspondent , " DEUX ETOILES , " and I have no views in common on this question , and so far as wo are concerned , the matter must remain as it is—we aro diametrically opposed in opinion as in practice . This , however , atfords no jostificatiou for a letter so illogical in its

deductions , so unjust m its inferences , so unfair in its interpretations , as that iu your number of to-day . The remarks on tho Rev . Dr . Ace I pass over in silence , leaving it to that brother to maintain his own position , but I cannot permit the criticisms on myself to remain unanswered . I never held , or stated , the opinion " that there is any duty resting on a Mason to disregard all other outside direct Charity in favour of

distinctly Masonic Charity . " All I did was to combat the converse of this proposition . Iu asserting this , there is nothing contradictorv or illogical iu admitting that I have often endeavoured to urge npon Masons , « s Masons , that onr Masonic Institutions should have their first care , and I have established my views by arguments generally satisfactory to both my hearers and myself . By what astute reasoning tho management of the Boys' School is to bo attacked oa account of an appeal having beeu mado to assist in

Correspondence

after lifo " ono who had been educated there , passes my comprehension , which , unfortunately for me , is nofc of double star magnitude . I must inform our severely censorious Brother that the case he refers to is not an isolated one , and that other appeals havo been made , and are being made , for similar objects , owing to tho Institution not having at its command a fund for tho purpose , and I am proud to

know that tho education and training given in the School justify such appeals on behalf of talented and deserving young men . The allusions to my " after-dinner speeches " are in just such ta « te as I should naturally expect from a writer entertaining the views of your correspondent , who , doubtless , plumes himself on what he considers a " remarkable statement in words given in a moro sober

strain " ( is this meant for clever sarcasm , or for dignified censure , on implied fault ?) "than those in the report of his after-dinner speeches . " In 1838 , 65 boys were educated and clothed , with a total income of ; C 884 6 s , but our critic ought to have informed himself that at that date "Our Boys " were educated at a small cost , in schools near their parent ' s residences , aud clothed in a manner that

wonld not be tolerated now ; that that system continued to 1856 , and thereafter partially to 1865 , when the present building was opened . That statement , therefore , perfectly true in itsolf , has nothing " remarkable" about it in connection with the present discussion , and I need not trouble you with any remark on the " obvious contrast " so prominently noticed , simply because no such contrast can be found .

Again , lot mo remind your correspondent that tho receipt of £ 10 , 000 , or upwards , per annum , does not necessarily involve a similar expenditure , and I challenge him for proof of such a sum having been , or being expended on the education , clothing , and maintenance of 200 boys . If " DEUX ETOIT . ES " would study the annual reports of the Boys '

School before writing to tho Pross , he would avoid misleading , injurious statements , and spare himself and others much unnecessary trouble . From tho tono of the letter under consideration , it appears to mo that there is somo risk of this controversy degenerating into personalitios , and , therefore , I shall not pursue it . Enough has been

Avritten on tho subject , and I do not sen that any good can arise from its further ventilation . " DEUX ETOIT . ES" may onjoy all the gratification ho can possibly derive from his little jokes as to " Hercules " and an " authorised Binckes ' s ritual , " tho former reminding me , in view of all that has been written , or said , or done , in the earnest effort , and honest desire , to secure additional support to our valuable Institutions , of Hamlet's

exclamation" Let Hercules himself do what he may , The cat will mew , and clog will have his day . " I am , yours faithfully and fraternally , FREDERICK BINCKES . 21 sfc December 1878 .

Bro. Jacob Norton And "Q." On The Dunckerley Question.

BRO . JACOB NORTON AND "Q . " ON THE DUNCKERLEY QUESTION .

To the Editor of the FREEMASON ' CHRONICLE . DEAR SIR AXD BROTHER , —I have read Bro . Norton's comments on my criticisms with mnch interest , I may say , with pleasure , for though we differ widely on many material points , still I admire tho easy , plain-spoken manner in which ho treats his sabject . His courage in recording his opinions is admirable , but I am afraid I

cannot say as much for his accuracy . His letter roads plausibly enough—but what is it after all ? An opinion—whioh I fully admit is worthy of respectful consideration , but of nothing more . Thus , to givo his own words , " When I read the narrative printed in 1793 , I saw no reason to donbt Dnnckerley was a natural son of George tho Second . When I first read the article in the Gentleman ' s Magazine

for 1795 , I was puzzled as to which account was tho truo one . But when I finished reading the sequel , printed in 1796 , I came to the conclusion that if Georgo the Third would have submitted tho Dnnckerley story to tho judgment of such a lawyer as Sir Alexander E . J . Cockburn , Dnnckerley wonld never have received £ 800 a year , would never havo been a Provincial G . M ., would never have

introduced amongst the moderns the Royal Arch , Templarism , Kadosh , and other moonshine ; and would never havo figured in our annals as a ' Masonic Luminary . '" I say nothing against the change of opinion , but as I have already urged , they are only opinions , and in my humble judgment , there is nothing in them to shake my view . Let him adduce evidence thafc will bear the minutest investigation , and

then , if it is worthy of being described as facts , and they bear out his theory , I will at ouce acknowledge myself in error . Premising that his imagination is at fault when he describes me as being " evidently hot-headed" —I am as cold as ice , and never hurriedly commit myself to an opinion on any subject , of Avhich I believe myself capable of forming one ; that I never " find mvself

irritated by an article in a Masonio paper ; " I always argue to tho best of my humble ability ; and consequently that the time is not likely to arrive for me to " clap a wet towel on my head , " so that I " may read the article a second time " —I will just point out as briefly as I can , my reasons for thinking tho Masonic version will bear ( he tpsfc of analysis , and that unless we are prepared to Avrite down Dunckerley

as a vile impostor , who traded on his mother's adultery to his own advancement , and to suppose that Georgo tho Third , weak as ho may havo been in intellectn / d power , was in tho habit of giving nivny pensions and allotting apartments in a Royal palace to people who said they had some claim on ths pnrse nnd favour of His Mnje * ty , t tie

result can hardly bo otherwise than favourable to the Masonic version . Is it likely that the Royal patronaue would hivo been so liberally dispensed in the cf ; 3 e of an humble warrant-officer in the Navy had the reasons on which the application was made heen so Utterly frivolous ? The persons who took up his case and laid it be .