Lodge Funds.

where with a few casual payments , all the returns are swallowed up on festivities , and nothing is done for charity in any way . We have also noticed Treasurers' accounts , where the balance is alwa ) s against the lodge , and no effort is made to diminish it or wipe it off . We would

respectfully urge upon all lodges placed in such a position , ( how many we like not to think ) , one of two courses , either to diminish their expenses , or to increase their fees . And , on the whole , we lean to the last alternative as most likely , perhaps , to conduce to the interests

of the lodge and the good of Freemasonry . Is it not a scandal to us all alike that such a large proportion of our lodges never have done anything , and , apparently , are doing nothing for the great Charities of our Order > Is it not high time

to set our house in order in this respect ? Ought we to lose a moment in " squaring up" our lodge accounts , and showing to all that we practice as well as preach the excelling grace of charity ? We await a reply to these queries .

The Rite Ecossais.

THE RITE ECOSSAIS .

( Communique . ) It is well , we think , that our readers should be aware why many objections exist to English Masons taking part in the fete of this Order on the 23 rd . It is known as a fact , that the same pernicious teaching that has affected the Grand

Orient of France has also permeated , to some extent , at any rate , the " Grand Conseil . " It is true that so far no such " overt act , " no such wilful renunciation of belief in God has taken place in the " Rite Ecossais , " but it is also a fact , about which no French Mason

would doubt , but that the profession of faith of the Grand Conseil is as slender and unsatisfactory as well may be , and is a form , and nothing more . The utmost that the Geneva Congress seemed to reach unto by " hook and by crook , " as they say , was a " creative principle , " an " Anima

Mundi , " in fact , but far removed from T . G . A . O . T . U ., and all that is involved in the religious acceptance of the Holy Name and belief of God , which marks our reverent English Masonry . Considering all that has gone on in France , and at what is now taking place Masonically , we

confess that this exaltation of a High Grade is , we think unwise , and unsound , in theory and in practice . The Grand Orient is at present in direct antagonism with us , and may almost be considered in abeyance , but that is no reason why we should in any way mix up the claims of a High Grade organization with the simpler

and straightforward position of Craft Masonry . The Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite has nothing whatever to do with Craft Masonry . Knowing , as we say , perhaps , better than most of our readers what is going on in France , we think it well to interject again to-day a few friendly words of counsel and warning .

Original Correspondence.

Original Correspondence .

[ We do wot hold ourselves responsible for , or even approving of , the opinions expressed by onr correspondents , but we wish In a spirit of fair play to all , to permit—within certain necessary limits—tree discussion . ]

A PROTEST . To the Editor of the " FrcemasM . " Dear Sir and Brother , — As a Life Governor of one of the Masonic Charitable Institutions , I have been addressed by an association calling itself the " London Masonic Charity Association , " and have been asked to hand over my votes to be disposed

of by the association in such manner as may seem to the committee to be desirable . This I most emphatically decline to do , and I trust that the great majority of London Wasons , who may happen to be possessed of votes in any of our Chaiitablc Institutions , will follow my example . Headers of yourpapcr cannot be i gnorant of the existence of this So-called Charity Association , and I have repeatedly

noticed the appearance of its name in your columns . When I heard of i's proposed formation , and learned its objects , I expressed a strong belief , founded on earnest hope , that the design would be abandoned ; but I now find that operations have actually began , and that certain London brethren have lent to this most un-Masonic project their

countenance and support . On my own behalf , and on behalf of many London Masons who think as I do on this matter , I wish to enter a protest against thc proposed proceedings cf this association ; and I would ask my brethren who like myself are London Masons to look at this question , nt t as mere local charity-jobber :, but as members of our

Original Correspondence.

great and united fraternity , too truly Catholic in its sympathies to be hampered and shackled by the petty influence of any local clique or caucus . The raison d ' e ' trc of the London Masonic Charity Association is that the various provinces , by concentrating their voting power upon two or three candidates from their several Districts manage to secure an amount of patronage

unduly large when measured by the amount of their subscriptions to the Charities . It is alleged that the metropolis , through its many wealthy lodges , contributes more than half of the money required for the support of the three Institutions , and yet fails to secure half of the patronage . And so it has been determined that London shall have a local association also , and that only London applicants shall be

supported by its influence , in order to defeat or in part neutralise the action cf the provinces . This is called an " act of self-defence" on the part of London Masons : It may be so , but I take leave to say that self-defence of this character is not in harmony with the genuine tenets and teaching tif Freemasonry . The provinces are doing wrong , and it is our duty to set them a

good example , not to follow a bad one set by them . I trust that those of my brethren in London , who have given in their adhesion to this scheme , will be led to reconsider their position , and reflect upon the objects aimed at by the London Masonic Charity Association . That failure may attend its operations will be the wish of every good Mason , for success would mean the triumphing of

principles , selfish and small in themselves , and certain to prove very harmful to Freemasonry . If it weie possible to weld the whole voting power of London into one homogenous mass , and to place its entire weight at command of a few skilful wire-pullers , who can doubt that the scale would be so heavily turned against the provinces as viitually to exclude them from all

representation and patronage ? One of two results must follow ; either the provinces would all unite and array their combined forces against the capital , or our provincial brethren would decline to enter upon such an un-masonic contest , and decline also to aid with their subscriptions the Charities from which they would be practically excluded . London

Masons would then have the advantage of all the patronage in our Institutions , and also the privilege of providing all the money needed for their support . Is this a consummation devoutly to be wished ? I am dear Sir and Brother , faithfully and fraternally yours , THOS . EDMONDSTON , Master i 6 c 8 .

[ We publish this letter under the special circumstances of the case , though we had not proposed to continue the discussion . We entirely disagree with our correspondent , and consider that he has misapprehended alike the " raison d ' etre of the institution and the position of affairs . ]

THE SUPREME COUNCILS . AND NEW ZEALANDTo the Editor of the " Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — Having bestowed much time for several years in the study of the constitutions , practice , aud usuage of Supreme Councils working the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite , I would feel obliged by your giving a place in your

valuable columns to the following remarks , on the recent treaty entered into between the seceding Supreme Councils from the confederation of Lausanne and the Supreme Council of Egypt . That treaty reminds one of the Russian-Turkish treaty of St . Stephano . Its provisions have been extorted from the Egyptian Council , and in so far as it deals with the

rights and privileges of parties not accessories to it they are not bound by it . Now , the first question which arises is , has the Egyptian Council any control over that of New Zealand ? It authorised , by the exercise of its undoubted power , the formation of the New Zealand Council . By virtue of that power the latter Council was lawfully formed ; and having

been so formed , its connection with that of Egypt eneled ; It became a separate and independent body . The child Council was born , and at its birth acquired an independent existence which no parent could destroy . The decree , or charter , quoted in the Frcemast . u of the 28 th September last , is not the charter under which the Council of New Zealand was created ; and I am at a loss

to see the writer ' s object in encumbering your columns with that document . The charter which the Council of Egpyt did give was different from the one he quoted in many respects ; and it did not authorise Egypt to exercise any control over the newly-created Council of New Zeal and , or give it a power to cancel its constitution , or even . limit its action . The revocation , therefore , by Egypt of

) ts decrees authorising the formation of a Supreme Council n New Zealand , does not annihilate the Supreme Council of that country , which was long ago formed . Had the decrees been revoked before they were acted on matters might have been different . But their recal now , after their object has been fulfilled , is like one " bolting thc stable door after the steed has been stolen . "

In no case , however , could these decrees be recalled without an offer of restitution or compensation for thc money spent through a reliance on them . No such offer has been made . And it is not said that the Supreme Council of New Zealand has exceeded its powers or ignored any provision of its charter , or in any other way broken the contract . But it is said that it was granted in error . What that error is it is not stated . Egypt , however , was fully and truly

informed of all the circumstances , and told that every effort would be made to get it to revoke any charter it might grart ; and it was requested not to give it if any such request would be listened to . I need not say that mere change cf mind is not a ground on which such a delivered charter , acted on , can he recalled . Thc only ground for inducing Egypt to act the questionable part it has taken , was the consicleratjon of immediate recognition , by the Councils of

Original Correspondence.

Charlestown , and its associated Councils . But its act is ultra vires , and consequently harmless . The three Supreme Councils of this kingdom have exacted this treaty from Egypt , on the alleged ground that it had no jurist'Ktton in a dependency of the British Crown . But this contention is erroneous . The constitutions of the Order do not recognise such distinctions . They

define the " places" where Supreme Councils may be found , and they provide that if none already exists in any country any Sovereign Grand Inspector General may form one there irrespective of nationality . We see this principle well illustrated in the cases of Scotland and Englard . As regards Scotland , it is said to have been formed by an alleged Sovereign Grand Inspector

General of France , although there existed at the time of its formation a Supreme Council in the United Kingdom at Dublin , and as regards England , it was formed by the Supreme Council of Boston , an American Council , although the Councils of Ireland and Scotland were then both in existence . If these Councils could be lawfully formed by foreign bodies , why should similar procedure be unlawful

as regards New Zealand ? Perhaps General Pike , the Sovereign Grand Commander of Charlestown , will kindly solve this difficulty , and I hope more successfully than he has done those , knotty points brought under his consideration by writers in the Freemason , in reference to the legality of the Supreme Councils of Scotland and Charlestown , and the authenticity of the Constitutions of 1786 .

Another contention of the three British Supreme Councils is that it is only lawful to have one Supreme Council in any one state . But this principle and regulation they themselves have disregarded by the formation of the Supreme Councils of Scotland and England , while another Council—that of Ireland—existed in the kingdom . How then can they plead this regulation against others ?

They cannot approbate and reprobate it to suit their own convenience . It is either binding or it is not . If binding , they are bound by it , and two of these three Councils must terminate their careers . If it be not binding , the New Zealand Council may exist on the ir own shewing . But not only do the three British Councils maintain the

lawfulness of their respective existences ; but they further maintain that each is entitled separately , and as three distinct Councils , to exercise its functions in New Zealand . There would thus be in that colony not one but three independent Supreme Councils—a claim more absolutely repugnant both to the spirit and to the letter of the Constitutions it is impossible to fancy .

That New Zealand is not , in the sense of the Constitutions of the A . and A . Rite , a part of Great Britain , 1 need not trouble you with any remarks , for the Supreme Councils of England , Scotland , and Ireland have themselves conceded thc principle as regards Canada , and the one country stands towards Biitain in the same relation as the other .

As regards the diplomas granted by Egypt to the brethren resident in Scotland , they are ostensibly recalled , because it is said to have been represented to Egypt that the Supreme Council of Scotland was an irregular and illegitimate body . But it has been shewn in the Freemason that that statement is true . The Constitutions of Scotland set forth that it was formed by virtue of a patent , dated in

1814 , held by a Dr . Morrison from the Supreme Council of France . Well , that statement is untrue , for the patent exists , and it is nrt from the Supreme Council of France . Indeed , that Council had no existence until 1821 . Dr . Morrison ' s patent is from a spurious council , termed the "Supreme Council of the West India Islands , " which , in flagrant violation of all Masonic law , carried on its

business , not in the West Indies , but in Pans , side by side with other Councils in that city . Dr . Morison ' s patent , however , such as it was , prohibited him from conferring any degree beyond the Thirtieth , and yet we are asked to re . cognise a Supreme Council of Thirty-thirds , all of whom were made by him . Dr . Morison , as already stated , was made a 33 " by the

spurious body referred to in 1814 , but , strangely , ten years afterwards , and three years after the formation of the Supreme Council of France , he presented a petition to the Grand Orient of France , seeking its Thirtieth Degree , on the footing that he did not already hold it , and that he recognised the Grand Orient as the only legitimate repository of these Degrees in France . These facts clearly shew that

Dr . Morison himself considered his patent of 1814 as spurious . Can it , therefore , be said that the Supreme Council of Scotland , which bases its existence solely on that spurious patent , is a genuine body ? Your contemporary , the Scottish Freemason , has shewn uneasiness at these statements , and has appealed to the " courteous" Secretary of the Supreme Council of Scotland to answer them . But that gentleman is as astute as he is

courteous , and acts on thc well-known principle , that discretion is the better part of valour 1 " He so acts because he knows that the statements he is called on to answer are true , and being true are unanswerable . Yours fraternally , JOHN THOMAS LOTH , Dr . Ph ., 33 ° , Member of thc Grand College of Rites of France . Author of the Illustrated History of the A . and A . S . Rite .

THE MARK . DEGREE To the Editor 0 / the "Freemason . " Dear Sir anil Brother , — I cannot allow thc remarks of your correspondent " W . Vinrr B . Bedolfe , M . D ., P . M ., P . Z ., 1329 , " to pass entirely unnoticed , although they deserve to be .

The very tone of his communication is so full of acerbity and splenic temper that I pause to consider whether he can be really a ' member of the Craft , as he professes . Assuming that he docs it is to be regretted that he docs not bear in mind thc tenets of thc Order , anil at least try to write charitably towards a brother whose sacred calling should in itself command some respect jf not indulgence ; but , Sir , I