The Grand Secretaryship.

THE GRAND SECRETARYSHIP .

No appointment , we understand , has , so far , been definitively made . The names of many well-known brethren are before H . R . H . the Grand Master , either submitted by their own action or the recommendation of friends . We confess that we think all these proceedings are somewhat premature and irregular .

Lyndcombe House.

LYNDCOMBE HOUSE .

A Special Court of the Girls' School will be held on Saturday next , at twelve o ' clock , at Freemasons' Hall , to pass the resolution for the purchase of this desirable property over again , in consequence of a slight informality in the

previous proceedings . We need hardly press on all who have the welfare of the Girls' School at heart the duty of being present , in the face of recent senseless opposition , to support a motion so reasonable , so seasonable , and so important for the very safety of the Girls' School itself .

Original Correspondence.

Original Correspondence .

[ Wn do not hold ourselves responsible for , or even approving of , the opinions expressed by our correspondents , but we wish in ii spirit of fair play to all , to permit—within cerrain necessary limits—free discussion . !

UNIFORMITY OF RITUAL . To the Editor of thc " Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — 1 have , with extreme regret , read Bro . James Stevens' letter in the Freemason of 27 th ult ., ill which he pledges " his Masonic honour , and gives his undertaking to name , in proper place , where he has witnessed senile of

them ( scenes ) , and before which Provincial Grand Master , that , w . thout any exaggeration whatever , pardonable or otherwise , 1 have represented facts within my own experience . " Does our Bro . Stevens mean by this to allege that any Provincial Grand Master permitted , in his presence " the farce and mummery " mentioneel by Bro . Perceval in his

letter in the Freemason of 13 th ult . to have taken place ? or does he mean that he ( Bro Stevens ) lodged a complaint under page 46 , article 4 , with a Provincial Grand Master who neglected or refused to do his duty ? If cither of these be the case the charge is a most scri'ius one against sonic Provincial Grand Master , and only makes Bro . Stevens' course of proceeding more

strange . Assuredly he shouhl , thc very next day , have done his duty , as directed by page 81 , article 0 , which directs that " all complaints of members that cannot be . -u'conimtid . itcd privately or in regular lodge , shall be reduced into writing and delivered to the Grand Secretary . " And then follow directions to the Grand Secretary as to what he is to do anil the course of proceedings .

{ am glad Bro . Stevens states he dots not intend to cross St . George ' s Channel , and I hope he won ' t "the Border , " as I am strongly inclined to think the true reason for Bro . Stevens not doing as diiectcd by page 81 , article o , was , that he was a visitor at thc lodge where he alleges these scenes took place , but as he " has pledged his Masonic honour and undertaking " so freely , and as I have the honour of being a member of two lodges in the

1 ' iovincc cf Cornwall , and two lodges of instruction in L-iide r ., I now as an Kn ^ lish brother call on Bro . Stevens within one fortnight from this day "to reduce into writing his complaints , and deliver thc same to the Grand Secretary , " pursuant to page Si , article 6 , and he will in due time be informed by the Grand Secretary of the proper timeand place to appear" and maintain them . Yours fraternally ,

JAMES H . NEILSON . 32 , Lower Le-son-street , Dublin . 1 st January , 1880 .

Dear Bro . Kenning , — As Bro . Stevens has thought well to mention my name in c mnection with Bro . Perceval ' s lett r , though 1 venture to think hs might have Icfc Bro . Perceval and myself to cairy on the amiable little controversy between us , 1 feel myself compelled , rather unwillingly , to obtrude myself on your space and readers again to-day . I pass

over at once all " personal remarks , " with which his long letter is profusely sprinkled , as utterly unworthy of the " Freemason , " and , above all , of an educated member of our charitable and tolerant tirder . Nothing to my mind i . so hopeless in our Masonic literature as that personality which is a discredit on us all alike , and must affect the non-Masonic mind with the gravest doubts of the reality

and worth of our Masonic professions . I am very sorry to find that Bro . Stevens is still , " ex confesso , " unable to understand the drift of my opposition . I should not have thought so perusing his vehement animadversions on my few an . I unpretending remarks , but , as he says , so " cadit qua'srio . " My position , summed up in a few words , was tills :

Neither the history of the ritual , before the Union or tubsekiuentl y , justifies an attempt to enforce uniformity ; and tjie wise toleration of Grand Lodge since 1813 , thougR it has an established moc'e of working , is a proof both of the inherent difficulty of the question and of its unwillingness to pull the reins of discipline too tightly . Since thc Union , as I pointed out , we have had Hem ! .

Original Correspondence.

ming ' s working , Williams ' s ( Hemming ' s improved ) , the Prestonian , the Antient working , all lingeung in our midst ; and , remembering what Masonry was and what Masonry is , 1 can only say that , however Bro . Stevens may attack our present system , English Freemasonry has thriven wonderfully under it . I began working in England in a distinguished lodge in the

North , in 1842 and I obtained my Masonic lore from a brother who had attended the meetings of the " Lodge of Reconciliation" itself . Thus I can safely say , just as between Williams and Hemmings , the whole is a " logomachy , " a mere difference of verbiage ; and not all this " diarrhoea of words " which we are favoured with now about this mighty question will ever make me

think but what we arc wasting time and temper about one of the " vainest" and least practical questions which ever was submitted m Grand Lodge . Such is my honest opinion , formed after a Masonic apprenticeship of forty years , and careful Masonic studies for many years , and I certainly am not to be deterred from expressing that opinion , in Grand

Lodge and out of Grand Lodge , either by personal remarks or unfraterr . al suggestions . There is one point in which I untloubtedlyJailed in my short address in Grand Lodge . It was not in pointing out , as I meant to do , that Grand Lodge itself practically , in 1870 , reviewed and reversed the decision of Grand Lodge in 1869 , and whereas it was industriously circulated and openly stated , in Grand

Lodge , that the " Dais" by paying no heed to the resolution of Grand Lodge in 186 9 had insulted Grand Lodge . I had intended to point out , and I am sorry now I did not , that Grand Lodge itself had practically shelved the question in 1870 . But as Grand Lodge extended to me the great courtesy of listening to my remarks , and shewed the greatest forbearance , I was naturally

unwilling at a late hour to seem to trespass on its kind consideration . 1 , perhaps , may be permitted on another occasion to dwell on that point . I don ' t see that I need occupy more of your space , the more so as I may have to say a few words on Bro . Perceval ' s Utter next week , and am , dear Bro . K . cimiug , fraternally yours , A . F . A . WOODFORD .

To the Editor of the " Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — My letter of the 13 th ult . has , as I wished and expected , brought forth several answers , to which , with your permission , I will reply seriatim , and as briefly as possible . First of all , Bro . Woodford , P . G . C . The style of his different paragraphs are many and varied . First ,

he commences with a " Tu quoque , " for which he excuses himself and apologises in his fifth paragraph ; number two , he doubts my capability of understanding what he says ; now I deny that soft impeachment , my education not having been neglected , but if a man does not say what he means , or does not mean what he says , I am ready to confess myself nonplussed , His argument was

briefly this paragraph three ) , that Grand Lodge in its wise toleration , for though an established made of working was alluded to in the Book of Constitutions , yet the Grand Lodge was perfectly powerless to enforce ; its commands as ( Paragraph four ) was the case with regard to the Stir in the East , for the use or disuse of that which has been distinctly and often circulated throughout thc

kingdom , yet thc feelings and traditions of some of the Craft lodges were far more worthy of consideration than the mandate of Grand Lodge , to which we are taught to submit ; then again , the quiet way Bro . Woodford puts down Bro . Bod . 'iiham , when " 1 ope my mouth let no other dog dare to bark , " is ] very amusing , and is continued in Paragraph five , in which thc printer ' s capital " l's " must have been

nearly exhausted , winding up first , with a doubting sentence " as they say , " and then thc elogmatic assertion that the whole argument rests on a fallacy . Of course , after such a courteous summing up , I can only bow to his superior judgment . Paragraph six , again , " If their statement be verified ? They have proved the need of authoritative interference , " and yet he objects to having a

constituted authority , thc word made use of by me in my letter , and , again , because he has been the Worshipful Master of three distinguished ( of course ) lodges . If Bro . Woodford would only interrogate a little more closely he would find some who had been subject to these , what he properly calls grotesque absurdities . Paragraph seven : " there are little ceremonies , " which certainly

tend to make the ordeal more impressive , but they have to be performed very carefully or they take from , instead of adding to , the beauty of our ritual , the Star in the East for instance , I prefer it , but as in duty bound I , as W . M ., obey that power to which my allegiance is due . Paragraph eight is a hotch-potch of denial of facts ( for I do not know why Bro . Woodford's fiat should be taken as

to what is , or is not , a respectable lodge ) , and putting a blind eye to decidedly irregular practices , and then the ninth and last paragraph , Oh , what would a telegraphist say if he bad to send that message ? " that the gentleman meant to have his penn'oth out of the instrument , " it would be a good spelling exercise at an examination , though the moral would be bad , "I am King Solomon ,

the king of wisdom , and it you don ' t do as I do , say as I say , you cannot be educated ; you arc false , talk twaddle , and are endangering the state , " " quod dixi tlixi . " So far Bro . Woodford . " One who was in Grand Lodge . " What docs this brother call an accidental majority ? Why , if ever there

was a crushing majurity ' that was one . I was there , and to thc best e > f my belief if the house had been counted , thc numbers tallied would have been as three if not four to one . My argument was for a constituted authority founded on the investigation by the best skilled and most competent brethren from oral testimony , to whom , after they had given their decision , application might be made by or

Original Correspondence.

through any Master of a lodge who might desire It , and to whom references could be made , and a reliable answer received . Now for Bro . Neilson . Concerning our strange and unjustifiable conduct in not reporting any irregularities that might have been witnessed , in the first place there is no constituted authority to whom to report ; secondly , I hope we

are men , and not boys , to go running to all the officers in Grand Lodge to know where to lodge a complaint , but would rather quietly tell the friend who invited us , or the W . M . if sufficiently acquainted , that this was not according to thc usual manner of working , or " that was worked differently elsewhere , " and that if he applied to so and so he would get the required information . In his leading

paragraph he refers to my remarks about the scantiness of the same in your paper upon the Grand Lodge meeting . 1 was referring to the article on it of about a dozen lines , and not to the report of the meeting , which was wonderfully correct and full , perhaps , as he says , rather too much so . I know of a lodge where the bye-laws have not been read for years , and there they are taken as read , though

never issued to the members , and they have never seen or heard of them , but being an invited guest I told my friend that I thought it very reprehensible , and left him to move in the matter ; I was not going to return the courtesy and kindness with which I had been received by so uncharitable and ungrateful an act as that of while

eating their salt turning a spy upon their actions , while still maintaining the necesj ' ty for a properly constituted authority . I remain dear Sir and Brother , yours fraternally . CHARLES JOHN PERCEVAL , V . P . 8 , Thurloe Place . 20 th December .

To the Editor of the " Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — I am heartily amused at Bro . Stevens' long letter , the more so as he completely ignores the main point of my letter . 1 am aware that it is a neat little " Crux , " and should really like to see some answer to it , leaving out personalities . Bro . Stevens cannot complain

that you do not give him plenty of space and type . I confess when I read his letter through , I said at thc end—What is it all about ? I suppose that there is some meaning in it , though I fail to discover it . Perhaps I am incapable of understanding an argument ; but be this as it may , I think I can , as a rule , mister what a " plain man says , " and " what any fellow ought to understand . " For once ,

however , I am nonplussed , and shall look forward with interest to Bro . Perceval ' s explanatory letter . But at present 1 am in a complete haze . We were told , first of all , that " in pursuance of a resolution of Grand Lodge , " & c . But why were we not also told that , in its wisdom , Grand Lodge itself , by two majorities , refused , in 1870 , to carry out practically

the resolution of the Grand Lodge of 186 9 . Had we been told this clearly in Grand Lodge , I am quite sure Bro , Stevens' resolution would have been rejected , and the amendment or negative carried . Though Bro . Perceval says the majority was three to one , I venture to dissent from this by saying that the majority was not a large one by any means . So much so , that regret was expressed b y

many that a distinct division was not taken . 1 hope we are not going to have any more " personalities " or references to Carlyle and the like . They are all , in my humble opinion , utterly unwoithy of us all , as Masons , as men , and as gentlemen . As Bro . Woodford is said to be " illogical , " Bro . While is said not to have " understood " the amendment

which he seconded ; and so on , & c . And this is Masonry , " my masters . " ONE WHO WAS IN GRAND LODGE .

To the Editor of the " Freemason " Dear Sir and Brother , — Your action , and that of others , in pointing out the imprudence of Bro . James Stevens ' s late motion in Grand Lodge has been amply justified by the later development of Bro . James Stevens ' s imprudent zeal . In defiance , or at least in entire disregard , of the Book of

Constitutions , Bro . James Stevens announces that he will publish , for " private circulation , " the speech which , he made in Grand Lodge—a speech , too , which sets forth the ritual , the working , and the variations . Certainly Bro , James Stevens cannot be considered one of thc ¦ ' Prudent Brethren , " when he proposes even to adopt such such a course . Let Bro . Stevens , before it is too late , be

guide 1 by the Book of Constitutions . " No brother shall presume to print or publish , or cause to be printed or published , the proceedings of any lodge , or any part thereof . . . without the consent of the Grand Master , or Provincial Grand Master , under p _ in of being suspended or expelled from the Order . " An instance of Bro . Jimes Stevens's blind imprudence is

seen in the fact that he publishes with pride the " opinions " of thc general press upon what he is pleased to call his "book . " Those who supported Bro . James Stevens , in Gr ind Lodge on the last occasion should be warned by this remarkable piece of zealous mischief against being led further . The Craft has its tiled lodges of instruction , and here is

Bro . James Stevens calling from thc house top for the public to judge between him and his brethren on points of " Masonic Ritual . " The impropriety of such action requires no comment . Elsewhere Bro . fames Stevens speaks of Bro . Wnile as

having in thc 1 ite meeting forgotten his " ordinary propiiety . " The forgctfuluess in t [ uesti . m was in exposing some of the results brought about by Bro . James Stevens in exposing to public discussion , in print , these questions , to which the door should never be opened , if everybody had regard ' to obligations , Bro . Jamsa Stevens has nJ