Correspondence.

sion , for it is to fact and argument , and not to embellishment , that we must turn in a case like the present . In his letter "E . E . X . " has taken care to let us know that he appears to have " a very pretty quarrel" with some " High Grade Mason and K . T ., " and refers him to the pages in the last volume of the Freemasons' Magazine , where the AA-hole is set out at full length . I haA-c to thank "It . E . X . " for those references , because , in inion

my op , they succinctly state what I believe to he the true bearings ofthe question very much better than I could put them . I am not " discontented , " as "E . E . X . " affirms , at the success ivhich he is pleased to attribute to the working of his protege , and am quite au fait as to its machinery . Nor did it require the kind information he has given , for my especial behoof , to say that his mark is " on the lorious sea without a charter from

g any source Imt its own , " as well as that "it owns no allegiance ; '' on the contrary , if" 11 . E . X . " will read my letter again , he will find these points were duly considered and unhesitatingly condemned ; for in truth they are positive contradictions to the eleventh ancient charge , which slates " that it is not in the power of any man , or body of men , to make innovation in the body of Masonry . " Neither can he claim equal rights to confer a degree with any other

existing Masonic jurisdiction , because thej' are all and each of valid extraction , and have no need to go begging " with open hands" to the portals of any irregular assembly in the world , for thcy none of them require the Mark Degree , as their catena is complete without it ; and if "K . E . X . " and his friends cannot induce the Grand Lodge of England to recognize them ( from which the good genius of Masonry protect us !) he rest

may satisfied that his bantling will never he tacked on to esoteric Masonry . Thc last paragraph of " E . E . X . ' s " letter I shall pass over , because I am not at war with any one personall y , and although he has done mc tbe honour to include me in his pity and pronounce me malevolent , I care not . What I stated I still

maintain . I object to the principle of any body of persons setting up an authority of their own and calling upon others to bow before them in homage . I object to the illegality of the whole proceeding , to the animus so plainly stamped on its face , and to its partisanship . Our W . Bro . Kelly commences by " the gratuitous assumption and truly unfratcrnal tone" of my letter . How differently people view the

same object or event , needs no stronger confirmation than the opening sentence of Bro . Kelly ' s letter . In mine I accused a self constituted authority of an " assumption" of rights to which they are not entitled , and hey , presto ! Bro . Kelly turns the tables on me with a vengeance , and says I have adopted a " gratuitous assumption ! " I presume on tbe principle , "that in the captain ' s but a choleric word which in the soldier is rank blasphemy . " The trulunfraternal tone

" y " cannot , by any process of reasoning , be imputed to my comments , for the following plain reasons . There can be no fraternal band or intercourse with an " assumption , " hy an irresponsible clique , of powers that do not belong to them . It is they that are unfraternal—they are creating a schism— they arenmltiplying stumbling-blocks , obligations , and allegiance hy their own handy work . And for ivhat is this undertaken ? Is it not that spirit whicli , when finding it cannot be the first amongst thc first , creates for itself a minor world of its own ? ^ Reminding us of the fall of Lucifer , ivho , because he was second in the

glorious firmament of heaven , chose rather to draw countless thousands ofthe bright and happy spirits into the abyss than venerate one greater than himself . Again , as to the " unfraternal tone" which Bro . Kelly would brand me ivith , does he remember a very recent instance of a similarly illegal Grand Lodge—tbe Grand Lodge of the Philadelphes , of the Reformed Rite of Memphis—being denounced as btbe Grancl Lodof land ?

spurious y ge Eng Were not the Craft warned against it Lodge by Lodge ? Were not the acts of parliament pointed out under AA'hich it was included as a secret society not authorized hy law ? And if Bro . Kelly does remember this , let me ask him , How would it fare ivith ' thc Grand Lodge of Mark Masonry if tlie same course was adopted with regard to them , and to ivhich the proceedings equally apply ? Who would for their ? Certainl

answer being Masons y not tlie Grand Lodge of England , Certainly no other rite or ' Masonic jurisdiction , for are they not " on the sea without a charter from any source hut their own , " and " owe no allegiance ? " Consequently , as I do owe allegiance to the Masonic powers that be , I cannot speak in an " unfraternal tone" of that assembly ivhich is recognized neither by Masonic or statute law . Bro . Kelly also takes slight offence that I should have written under any anonymous signature , but as I could not append to my name the distinguished rank of a Grand , or even a Prov . Grand ,

Officer , I adopted a signature expressive of my opinion , and have 3 'et to learn that there is anything , worthy of consideration , to be advanced against a pseuelonyme such as wc daily see inserted in every newspaper in the kingdom . I am also accused of more particularly directing my attack against the El . Bro . Cole , and Bro . Stebbing . From this charge I am free . The remarks I made ou the III . Bro . Cole , than whom

no more chivalrous , honourable , and dignified brother is to be found in the Craft throughout the universe , ivere those of regret that he should have lent the prestige of bis unsullied name ami position to encourage that delusion which he ivould have been bound to discourage in another form . To say that such a regret is an attack , appears to me to be stretching a point beyond that of its due importance . Neither did I contemplate or perpetrate an fail

onslaught on Bro . Stebbing . What I said was drawn from a - inference of late notorious proceedings , " and Bro . Stebbing is too public a man amongst Masons , and knows too well that every public man is open to criticism , to suspect that in alluding to the discussions in Grand Lodge any offence ivas personally intended . If a brother is a public man he cannot suppose every one to be of like inion with himselfnor do I consider it wrong to look at

op , that public man ' s acts in thc lig ht in which our legislative assembly regards them , for if this be a veniality , the sooner our free discussion iu Grand Lodge is abrogated tbe better . I do not care to enter into tbe views of those who propounded the schismatic Mark Grand Lodge , nor shall I stop to inquire AA'hat Avas intended by thc resolution that fell through , in which it ivas recommended that all existing Mark Lod should surrender

ges their warrants into the hands of the new fanglcd executive , and that visits were not to be paid or received from those Lodges that dissented from this proposition . With these facts I shall not deal ; they arc widely known and justly appreciated . Our W . Bro . Kelly also informs me of that which I could not doubt in his case , that he feels bound by the Constitutions of the

Order to discountenance , and , in fact , never permit , the wearing ofthe Mark jewel and those of other rites where he presides ; but because Bro . Kelly does not permit it in his own province , that is no reason for its not being done elsewhere openly every day , as every brother must well know ; and my object was not to say that the Board of General Purposes ( of the Grand Lodge of England ) and the Committee of Grand Chapter were to originate any new

order , but to call attention to the open violation of section 3 , entitled " Regulations for tbe Government ofthe Craft , " in which it is laid down , " Nor shall any member be permitted to wear in the Grand Lodge , or in any private Lodge , any jewel , medal , or device , belonging or appertaining to any order or degree not recognized by the Grand Lodge of England , as part of pure antient Masonry , " and to suggest that they enforce a compliance to tire contumacious

with this law , under pains and penalties , ; so that we should , at all events , cut off the semblance of approbation that the Mark degree obtains when it is so intruded in spite ofthe above laAV , AA'hich recognizes no other ornaments than those pertaining to tire Craft degrees , tlie Holy Eoyal Arch , Centenary and Lodge medals , and the highest and most valuable of all—that belonging to the charities . Having disposed of the salient points in my opponents'

communications , disclaiming any personal feeling towards either of them , believing that they will both look at my letters as being directed against the system , and not having anything in common with an attack upon individual brethren , many of whom I hold in the highest veneration , I shall proceed to offer a few supplementary observations on the general subject . I regret exceedingly that in my last letter , ivhich was very

hurriedly written , I should have given utterance to the alternative of forming a new and independent Grand Mark Lodge , or attaching thc legitimate degree to the Grand Lodge of England ; the latter being an utter impossibility , oiving to the folloAving reasons , which I believe every candid and right thinking brother throughout the Craft will heartily endorse . 1 st . There is no evidence to shoiv that the so-called Mark

degree was in existence , knoivn , or practised , before the year 1780 ; and there is evidence to prove that its ori gin is to be traced to the disputes between the York and London Masons at that time , ^ ndly . It Avas practised in tAvo , if not more , of the Lodges in London at thc time of the Union ( in 1813 ) , and was well knoivn , besides being advisedly and solemnly repudiated , together with all other degreessaving those of E . A " F . Cand M . M . in

con-, , , , junction Avith the Holy E . A ., and this repudiation was equall y the AA'ork of the ancient as well as tbe modern Alasons . Srdly . Have not the majority of Ms / k Masters sworn to " discountenance impostors , and all dissenters from the original plan of Freemasonry ? " as well as " that thev ivould neither administer .