-
Articles/Ads
Article THE LONDON MASONIC CHARITY ASSOCIATION. ← Page 2 of 2 Article Original Correspondence. Page 1 of 2 Article Original Correspondence. Page 1 of 2 Article Original Correspondence. Page 1 of 2 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
The London Masonic Charity Association.
can do a committee of brethren can also do . Where is the difference in point of abstract theory , or concrete action ? Practically and positively there is none , and its a proof of no little Jesuitism , or perversity , or any thing else you like , to say that there is . The old adage "Defendit
Numerus , might well be employed to shew that there is no possible harm in a carefully selected committee seeking to collect and combine votes and voting papers , it is , in fact , only the present system expanded , organized , and scientifically conducted . And as such , —if London candidates
are to succeed in the future , it becomes the " necessity of the case . " Let us take as an illustration the case of the " boy Watkins , " an episode in the history of our Masonic elections , which we believe to be irresistible in its direct application , and the best reply
to all crude and petty objections , as the safest exp lanation to all bona fide or ' peddling objectors . Watkins , the fourteenth boy on the list for the Boys' School election , and unsuccessful by ninety-eight votes , is one of nine orphan children His mother has been unsuccessful in the Girls '
School election also , having few friends . The poor boy has made six applications in vain , and this was his last chance . He had no distinguished brother to obtain for a first application 1600 votes . He had no private committee to secure his election ; he had no " leading member of
the Order" to issue a " personal card" in his favour , but a few zealous friends , hard working Masons , and Life Governors , mustered up for him about 300 votes , and the London Masonic Charity Association polled the rest , only taking up the case on
its sheer merits , and also on its absolute necessity . The poor lad Watkins ought to have been successful , if some brethren had only been kind enough to remember that other candidates had five or six chances , he , poor orphan boy , had none . Here , surely , as we said before , is the best and truest answer to hasty objections ,
and perverse objectors . Here is the need ; the apology , ( if apology is required ) , of the London Masonic Charity Association , and bearing in mind how warmhearted and sympathetic our good London brethren are , we doubt not eventually , that they will see the need of the Association , and give to it hearty and active support .
Original Correspondence.
Original Correspondence .
[ We do not hold ourselves responsible for , or even approving of , the opinions expressed by our correspondents , but we wish in . 1 spivit of fair play to ail , to permit—within certain necessary limits—free discussion . ]
LONDON MASONIC CHARITY ASSOCIATION . To the Editor of the " Freemason . " I Dear Sir and Brother , — The editorial comment appended to my letter of the 13 th ult ., which [ appeared in your issue of the 19 th , although dissenting from my expressed opinions , is still in some measure satisfactory to me , since it gives me the right to
demand from you the ' privilege of a reply . Such privilege is one which your well-known courtesy will hardly refuse , more especially when it is borne in mind that this subject is one of a nature very interesting to Freemasons , and also one on which free discussion , if conducted in temperate and gentleman-like language , cannot or ought not to lead to evil results . If the aims of the " London Masonic
Charity Association "bc directed towards the advancement of Masonry and of charity , publicity and fair criticism arc not ordeals from which its promoters ought to shrink ; while if the reverse be the case , it cannot surely be contended that it is in the interests of Freemasonry that silence should be kept regarding its proceedings . Your note to my last letter says that I have "
misapprehended alike the raison d ' etre ot the institution anil the position of affairs . " This is a very sweeping condemnation , but whether it be an exact statement of fact or not I do not propose to discuss . I leave it to such of your readers as may chance to have seen my letter to decide for themselves as to whether I did or did not mis-state the objects of the Association , and the reasons which have calleel it
into existence . My conclusions may be wrong , but that is a matter of opinion . The question of misapprehension ( and consequent misrepresentation ) of the objects of the Association in my former letter is a question of fact , and this , as I have already said , I do not wish to argue . I turn to another patt of your paper , and I find a " Heport of the London Masonic Charity Association , "
occupying a prominent place . This repoit is not signed by any Secretary , President , or Chairman , and I am left in doubt as to whether it emanates from the editorial pen , or whether it is the actual report of the Association as adopted by their Committee . The form and substance of the report strongly support the latter supposition , were it not that in some respects this olherwiss official report replies in an argumentative manner to some of the objections raised in my letter .
Original Correspondence.
So strongly marked is the phraseology in one or two places as to afford the most convincing and conclusive evidence that the writer had the manuscri pt of my letter before him when his " report" was drawn up . This compels one of two conclusions . Either my letter was submitted to the responsible Secretary of the Association : before it had appeared in print , in order that he might refer to , and answer
it in his report ; or this report was written in the office of the Freemason by the Editor himself or by one of his subordinates . The first supposition I dismiss as an impossibility . It involves a very grave charge of serious indiscretion on the part of your journal and its management , and such a charge would not be made by me if not capable , ' of demonstration by absolutely irrefragable
evidence . I am driven , therefore , to accept the second hypothesis as above set forth , and must conclude that the repoit of the London Masonic Charity Association was written in the office of the Freemason by some one at least equal in rank to the sub-editor . If this be the fact , and I have shewn that it must be the fact , the same ought , in fairness , to be avowed , and
explicitly set forth in your columns . It is due to the Craft generally that it should be known that the Freemason and the " London Masonic Charity Association " are virtually one and the same , so that the arguments of the former in support ofthe latter may be accepted by Masons in London and elsewhere , auantum valeant . I am , dear Sir and Brother , faithfully and fraternally yours ,
THOS . EDMONDSTON , Master , 16 5 8 . 23 rd October , 1878 . [ As this correspondence is becoming purely personal we decline to continue it . Bro . Edmondston is again clearly in utter error as to the facts of the case . —Eu . F . M . ]
To the Editor ofthe " Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — With respect to the remarks of Bro . Edmonston , which I have seen , I beg to state that the " Report" accepted by the London Masonic Charity Association was drawn up without the slightest reference ta his letter , and
that all bis remarks " thereancnt " constitute a tissue of absurdities perfectly beneath notice . 1 am sorry to write thus of a brother Mason . The "Report" was drafted on the evening of the Boys' School Election , and when Bro . Edmonston ' s letter had certainly not been read by me , and certainly was not referred to by me in the remotest manner . THE DRAFTER OF THE REPORT .
THE MARK . DEGREE . To the Editor cf the "Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — From some delays in the post my / 'Yeemaso-i . didnot duly arrive , and it is difficult to write under the excitement of travelling , with a very extended journey still to perform . 1 had certainly hoped that Bro . Lamonby would not
have deseitcd his assumed character of historian , and it is a matter of regret that " Ecce Signum , " who has written a letter should almost commence by remarks personal to myself , as his only argument or resource . Of course to use Sheridan's phrase "it is only the gentleman ' s way of saying that he differs from me in opinion , " and suchabrother as " Ecce Signum" might have written very much nonsense
before I had troubled his repose with a criticism ; yet when a gentleman claiming to belong to the Republic of Letters writes it is a different thing . Such a man is no more justified in writing nonsense in the Freemason than in the Times or Standard . Any discourtesy to Bro . Lamonby I utterly deny , having only criticised his history and claims to recognition for the Mark Association , and do not doubt he
himself fully admits the truth of all I said . I may further here remark that my reply to " Ecce Signum" is simply one of courtesy , he has no light to mingle in a discussion unless he seriously enters into that discussion . It would be bad management on my part , having started the fox , to hunt any stray hare that chooses to cross the scent , whilst even if accepted , in any learned society the
speaker who wandered from the subject of discussion would soon be called to order . Our Bro . Lamonby has failed to reply to my arguments , neither has any one else offered in argument to supply his place . I therefore claim to have shown , ist that his account of the connection of the brethren of the Mark Association with King Solomon is untrue ; 2 ndly , that my statement
that such an institution in the time of King Solomon was an impossibility is not disproved ; , * jrdly , that the same remark holds gi . od , as to its connection with Melrose Abbey , Masons' Marks , and time immemorial . I claim therefore the right to assert that his entire statement is a delusion , and to uninformed minds a snare . I say this deliberately , for I consider the question of this
so-called Mark Degree , one of the very highest importance requiring the fullest liberty of discussion , and believe a step inadvisedly taken in this direction would leave an impassable gulf between Freemasonry on one hand and reason and philosophy on the other . I am entirely without woiks of reference , or I could readily point my brother to a very careful speech of the
Prince Imperial of Prussia not many years since , in which , in discussing the subject , he distinctly calls the attention cf the Craft to the fact that there is but one portion of Masonry which has properly the right to be considered as such , and he further states that seme of the ideas connected with Masonry in the minds of many , may require revision .
1 have , therefore , some support when I claim for the brethren of the Craft Degrees , that their rite is the sole inheritor of what may be called ancient Masonry , and to the ijuestion , " what do I think of the Second Degree ?" I would premise in replying that what is learnt from the First Degree is that the Mason ' s lodge retains all the characteristics of the ancient corporate or municipal institutions ,
Original Correspondence.
and that such an institution never existed in the old eastern world . As applied to Masonry , the First Degree teaches what I will not here describe , but which is based on everlasting truth and is dear to us all . The Second Degree directs us—I will not say to what here , but its directions are clear and definite , and calculated
to call out all the faculties which can adorn the world . The Third Degree also indicates—I will not say what here—but also very important subjects . There is nothing , however , in all this but what ac ords with philosophy , and the idea of the Great First Cause . Looking at our Degrees , thus far they are unique , and , in a literary point of view , perfect . At the end , however ,
of the Third Degree we find the well-known and much abused story of King Solomon . It is , no doubt , a difficult subject , and in the absence of all other than inferential knowledge , the only mode of argument is that by analysis . The name of King Solomon is a symbol , a name recognised and known—equally by the grand religions of the world , the Jew , the Christian , the Mahomeden—a name
before which as a symbol all may bow who hold belief in the Great Architect of the Universe—the one eternal—the God of Abraham , of Isaac , and of . Jacob . Such , indeed , is the original idea which pervades Masonry . I believe it would have been far better had Masonry adhered to this form , pure and simple . It has , however , ( unfortunately ) , in my opinion , divertedthis idea to a certain
extent into something different , and this most glorious symbol we have so far degraded as to bring him bodily on the stage and make him talk of purely personal trivialities . Pure hearts make right prayers , and many there are amongst us who have not in their hearts bowed the knee , but carefully treasure up the idea of the true symbol , and
although what has been done in times past we may be bound by , the question now is , are we to go farther in this degradation of our sacred symbol ? I ask our brethren to study the simplicity of our Second Degree ; I ask whether they will consent to have it degraded by that with which it can have no possible relation , which is at utter variance with its spitit . I claim to have some literary
knowledge of the Mark Institution ; but thanking sincerely my brother for his invitation , feel that I could not conscientiously take it without feeling myself a traitor to the Craft . Let me finally ask my brethren of our noble Craft Masonry to hold to their own , to assert its rights and dignities , and never to forget the true meaning of its oft abused
symbol King Solomon . I warn my brethren also against all and every one who shall try to make of Masonry the travesty of a religion , and finally , to ask our friends , who propose to disfigure our cherished symbols with their " Beautiful" to offer us some belter claim to do so than glib absurdity . Yet , properly understood , there is nothing
in Masonry opposed to common sense . This question was not raised by me , but by our esteemed Bro . Lamonby . I have merely given his history a logical sequence . Can we touch pitch without being defiled ? Can we trifle with falsehood without being debased ? How long will it be before our enemies say , " the sect that believes a lie ?" W . VINER BEDOLFE , M . D . P . M . 1329 .
MASONIC MENDICANCY . To the Editor ofthe " Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — A short time ago a man , professing to be a Mason , applied to me , as Almoner of the Royal Edward Lodge ( 892 ) , for relief . He knew enough answeis to Masonic questions to pass himself off as a Mason
generally , but our W . M . was not satisfied , and pressing him rather closely , discovered that he was not a Mason . I wrote to the Secretary of what he called his lodge , and received the following answer : — " Keystone Lodge ( 363 ) , Whitworth , Oct . 14 th , 1878 . Dear Sir and Brother , I have been abroad for the last thice weeks and did not get your letter until last night . We have no such person on our
books as John Fox , neither do we believe him to be a Mason . He has applied to us for relief , which was refused . I remain , yours fraternally , J . II . Scholfield . " The application for relief was in writing , as follows ( which appears to be his general method , as he applied here for relief in a very similar letter about a year ago , under another name , which 1 cannot give you , having
unfortunately lost his letter ) : — " Leominster Station , Wednesday night . Sir ^ and Brother , I am sent to you as a ' Mason , ' to beg the favour of your good offices in an unexpected difficulty , and I am ashamed to be obliged to trouble you in such a way . I have come from the North of England , and had arranged to meet a relative of mine lure at the station , upon whom I had entirely depended for ways
and means , for all immediate purposes . He has , however , failed to keep his appointment , and I am consequently detained in the utmost misery and suspense , completely penniless , weatherbound , and broken down . In this extremity if you could bc of any service to me , just pro tern ., I should feel it a great kindness , and would do my best to square the obligation soon as possible . Deeply regretting
such an intrusion upon your sympathy and attention . I am , yr . ob . ser ., John Fox , 3 63 . " I have been careful , in above copy , in following italics , contractions , and pointing . I inclose originals of above letters , which please return . I have no doubt that there are a number of similar applications to the above , and
that persons are making a living out of the Craft , and that a good means of stopping it will be to relieve no one who cannot produce a proper certificate , on the back of which all relief should be endorsed . Yours truly , C . J . SAXBY . Leominster .
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
The London Masonic Charity Association.
can do a committee of brethren can also do . Where is the difference in point of abstract theory , or concrete action ? Practically and positively there is none , and its a proof of no little Jesuitism , or perversity , or any thing else you like , to say that there is . The old adage "Defendit
Numerus , might well be employed to shew that there is no possible harm in a carefully selected committee seeking to collect and combine votes and voting papers , it is , in fact , only the present system expanded , organized , and scientifically conducted . And as such , —if London candidates
are to succeed in the future , it becomes the " necessity of the case . " Let us take as an illustration the case of the " boy Watkins , " an episode in the history of our Masonic elections , which we believe to be irresistible in its direct application , and the best reply
to all crude and petty objections , as the safest exp lanation to all bona fide or ' peddling objectors . Watkins , the fourteenth boy on the list for the Boys' School election , and unsuccessful by ninety-eight votes , is one of nine orphan children His mother has been unsuccessful in the Girls '
School election also , having few friends . The poor boy has made six applications in vain , and this was his last chance . He had no distinguished brother to obtain for a first application 1600 votes . He had no private committee to secure his election ; he had no " leading member of
the Order" to issue a " personal card" in his favour , but a few zealous friends , hard working Masons , and Life Governors , mustered up for him about 300 votes , and the London Masonic Charity Association polled the rest , only taking up the case on
its sheer merits , and also on its absolute necessity . The poor lad Watkins ought to have been successful , if some brethren had only been kind enough to remember that other candidates had five or six chances , he , poor orphan boy , had none . Here , surely , as we said before , is the best and truest answer to hasty objections ,
and perverse objectors . Here is the need ; the apology , ( if apology is required ) , of the London Masonic Charity Association , and bearing in mind how warmhearted and sympathetic our good London brethren are , we doubt not eventually , that they will see the need of the Association , and give to it hearty and active support .
Original Correspondence.
Original Correspondence .
[ We do not hold ourselves responsible for , or even approving of , the opinions expressed by our correspondents , but we wish in . 1 spivit of fair play to ail , to permit—within certain necessary limits—free discussion . ]
LONDON MASONIC CHARITY ASSOCIATION . To the Editor of the " Freemason . " I Dear Sir and Brother , — The editorial comment appended to my letter of the 13 th ult ., which [ appeared in your issue of the 19 th , although dissenting from my expressed opinions , is still in some measure satisfactory to me , since it gives me the right to
demand from you the ' privilege of a reply . Such privilege is one which your well-known courtesy will hardly refuse , more especially when it is borne in mind that this subject is one of a nature very interesting to Freemasons , and also one on which free discussion , if conducted in temperate and gentleman-like language , cannot or ought not to lead to evil results . If the aims of the " London Masonic
Charity Association "bc directed towards the advancement of Masonry and of charity , publicity and fair criticism arc not ordeals from which its promoters ought to shrink ; while if the reverse be the case , it cannot surely be contended that it is in the interests of Freemasonry that silence should be kept regarding its proceedings . Your note to my last letter says that I have "
misapprehended alike the raison d ' etre ot the institution anil the position of affairs . " This is a very sweeping condemnation , but whether it be an exact statement of fact or not I do not propose to discuss . I leave it to such of your readers as may chance to have seen my letter to decide for themselves as to whether I did or did not mis-state the objects of the Association , and the reasons which have calleel it
into existence . My conclusions may be wrong , but that is a matter of opinion . The question of misapprehension ( and consequent misrepresentation ) of the objects of the Association in my former letter is a question of fact , and this , as I have already said , I do not wish to argue . I turn to another patt of your paper , and I find a " Heport of the London Masonic Charity Association , "
occupying a prominent place . This repoit is not signed by any Secretary , President , or Chairman , and I am left in doubt as to whether it emanates from the editorial pen , or whether it is the actual report of the Association as adopted by their Committee . The form and substance of the report strongly support the latter supposition , were it not that in some respects this olherwiss official report replies in an argumentative manner to some of the objections raised in my letter .
Original Correspondence.
So strongly marked is the phraseology in one or two places as to afford the most convincing and conclusive evidence that the writer had the manuscri pt of my letter before him when his " report" was drawn up . This compels one of two conclusions . Either my letter was submitted to the responsible Secretary of the Association : before it had appeared in print , in order that he might refer to , and answer
it in his report ; or this report was written in the office of the Freemason by the Editor himself or by one of his subordinates . The first supposition I dismiss as an impossibility . It involves a very grave charge of serious indiscretion on the part of your journal and its management , and such a charge would not be made by me if not capable , ' of demonstration by absolutely irrefragable
evidence . I am driven , therefore , to accept the second hypothesis as above set forth , and must conclude that the repoit of the London Masonic Charity Association was written in the office of the Freemason by some one at least equal in rank to the sub-editor . If this be the fact , and I have shewn that it must be the fact , the same ought , in fairness , to be avowed , and
explicitly set forth in your columns . It is due to the Craft generally that it should be known that the Freemason and the " London Masonic Charity Association " are virtually one and the same , so that the arguments of the former in support ofthe latter may be accepted by Masons in London and elsewhere , auantum valeant . I am , dear Sir and Brother , faithfully and fraternally yours ,
THOS . EDMONDSTON , Master , 16 5 8 . 23 rd October , 1878 . [ As this correspondence is becoming purely personal we decline to continue it . Bro . Edmondston is again clearly in utter error as to the facts of the case . —Eu . F . M . ]
To the Editor ofthe " Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — With respect to the remarks of Bro . Edmonston , which I have seen , I beg to state that the " Report" accepted by the London Masonic Charity Association was drawn up without the slightest reference ta his letter , and
that all bis remarks " thereancnt " constitute a tissue of absurdities perfectly beneath notice . 1 am sorry to write thus of a brother Mason . The "Report" was drafted on the evening of the Boys' School Election , and when Bro . Edmonston ' s letter had certainly not been read by me , and certainly was not referred to by me in the remotest manner . THE DRAFTER OF THE REPORT .
THE MARK . DEGREE . To the Editor cf the "Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — From some delays in the post my / 'Yeemaso-i . didnot duly arrive , and it is difficult to write under the excitement of travelling , with a very extended journey still to perform . 1 had certainly hoped that Bro . Lamonby would not
have deseitcd his assumed character of historian , and it is a matter of regret that " Ecce Signum , " who has written a letter should almost commence by remarks personal to myself , as his only argument or resource . Of course to use Sheridan's phrase "it is only the gentleman ' s way of saying that he differs from me in opinion , " and suchabrother as " Ecce Signum" might have written very much nonsense
before I had troubled his repose with a criticism ; yet when a gentleman claiming to belong to the Republic of Letters writes it is a different thing . Such a man is no more justified in writing nonsense in the Freemason than in the Times or Standard . Any discourtesy to Bro . Lamonby I utterly deny , having only criticised his history and claims to recognition for the Mark Association , and do not doubt he
himself fully admits the truth of all I said . I may further here remark that my reply to " Ecce Signum" is simply one of courtesy , he has no light to mingle in a discussion unless he seriously enters into that discussion . It would be bad management on my part , having started the fox , to hunt any stray hare that chooses to cross the scent , whilst even if accepted , in any learned society the
speaker who wandered from the subject of discussion would soon be called to order . Our Bro . Lamonby has failed to reply to my arguments , neither has any one else offered in argument to supply his place . I therefore claim to have shown , ist that his account of the connection of the brethren of the Mark Association with King Solomon is untrue ; 2 ndly , that my statement
that such an institution in the time of King Solomon was an impossibility is not disproved ; , * jrdly , that the same remark holds gi . od , as to its connection with Melrose Abbey , Masons' Marks , and time immemorial . I claim therefore the right to assert that his entire statement is a delusion , and to uninformed minds a snare . I say this deliberately , for I consider the question of this
so-called Mark Degree , one of the very highest importance requiring the fullest liberty of discussion , and believe a step inadvisedly taken in this direction would leave an impassable gulf between Freemasonry on one hand and reason and philosophy on the other . I am entirely without woiks of reference , or I could readily point my brother to a very careful speech of the
Prince Imperial of Prussia not many years since , in which , in discussing the subject , he distinctly calls the attention cf the Craft to the fact that there is but one portion of Masonry which has properly the right to be considered as such , and he further states that seme of the ideas connected with Masonry in the minds of many , may require revision .
1 have , therefore , some support when I claim for the brethren of the Craft Degrees , that their rite is the sole inheritor of what may be called ancient Masonry , and to the ijuestion , " what do I think of the Second Degree ?" I would premise in replying that what is learnt from the First Degree is that the Mason ' s lodge retains all the characteristics of the ancient corporate or municipal institutions ,
Original Correspondence.
and that such an institution never existed in the old eastern world . As applied to Masonry , the First Degree teaches what I will not here describe , but which is based on everlasting truth and is dear to us all . The Second Degree directs us—I will not say to what here , but its directions are clear and definite , and calculated
to call out all the faculties which can adorn the world . The Third Degree also indicates—I will not say what here—but also very important subjects . There is nothing , however , in all this but what ac ords with philosophy , and the idea of the Great First Cause . Looking at our Degrees , thus far they are unique , and , in a literary point of view , perfect . At the end , however ,
of the Third Degree we find the well-known and much abused story of King Solomon . It is , no doubt , a difficult subject , and in the absence of all other than inferential knowledge , the only mode of argument is that by analysis . The name of King Solomon is a symbol , a name recognised and known—equally by the grand religions of the world , the Jew , the Christian , the Mahomeden—a name
before which as a symbol all may bow who hold belief in the Great Architect of the Universe—the one eternal—the God of Abraham , of Isaac , and of . Jacob . Such , indeed , is the original idea which pervades Masonry . I believe it would have been far better had Masonry adhered to this form , pure and simple . It has , however , ( unfortunately ) , in my opinion , divertedthis idea to a certain
extent into something different , and this most glorious symbol we have so far degraded as to bring him bodily on the stage and make him talk of purely personal trivialities . Pure hearts make right prayers , and many there are amongst us who have not in their hearts bowed the knee , but carefully treasure up the idea of the true symbol , and
although what has been done in times past we may be bound by , the question now is , are we to go farther in this degradation of our sacred symbol ? I ask our brethren to study the simplicity of our Second Degree ; I ask whether they will consent to have it degraded by that with which it can have no possible relation , which is at utter variance with its spitit . I claim to have some literary
knowledge of the Mark Institution ; but thanking sincerely my brother for his invitation , feel that I could not conscientiously take it without feeling myself a traitor to the Craft . Let me finally ask my brethren of our noble Craft Masonry to hold to their own , to assert its rights and dignities , and never to forget the true meaning of its oft abused
symbol King Solomon . I warn my brethren also against all and every one who shall try to make of Masonry the travesty of a religion , and finally , to ask our friends , who propose to disfigure our cherished symbols with their " Beautiful" to offer us some belter claim to do so than glib absurdity . Yet , properly understood , there is nothing
in Masonry opposed to common sense . This question was not raised by me , but by our esteemed Bro . Lamonby . I have merely given his history a logical sequence . Can we touch pitch without being defiled ? Can we trifle with falsehood without being debased ? How long will it be before our enemies say , " the sect that believes a lie ?" W . VINER BEDOLFE , M . D . P . M . 1329 .
MASONIC MENDICANCY . To the Editor ofthe " Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — A short time ago a man , professing to be a Mason , applied to me , as Almoner of the Royal Edward Lodge ( 892 ) , for relief . He knew enough answeis to Masonic questions to pass himself off as a Mason
generally , but our W . M . was not satisfied , and pressing him rather closely , discovered that he was not a Mason . I wrote to the Secretary of what he called his lodge , and received the following answer : — " Keystone Lodge ( 363 ) , Whitworth , Oct . 14 th , 1878 . Dear Sir and Brother , I have been abroad for the last thice weeks and did not get your letter until last night . We have no such person on our
books as John Fox , neither do we believe him to be a Mason . He has applied to us for relief , which was refused . I remain , yours fraternally , J . II . Scholfield . " The application for relief was in writing , as follows ( which appears to be his general method , as he applied here for relief in a very similar letter about a year ago , under another name , which 1 cannot give you , having
unfortunately lost his letter ) : — " Leominster Station , Wednesday night . Sir ^ and Brother , I am sent to you as a ' Mason , ' to beg the favour of your good offices in an unexpected difficulty , and I am ashamed to be obliged to trouble you in such a way . I have come from the North of England , and had arranged to meet a relative of mine lure at the station , upon whom I had entirely depended for ways
and means , for all immediate purposes . He has , however , failed to keep his appointment , and I am consequently detained in the utmost misery and suspense , completely penniless , weatherbound , and broken down . In this extremity if you could bc of any service to me , just pro tern ., I should feel it a great kindness , and would do my best to square the obligation soon as possible . Deeply regretting
such an intrusion upon your sympathy and attention . I am , yr . ob . ser ., John Fox , 3 63 . " I have been careful , in above copy , in following italics , contractions , and pointing . I inclose originals of above letters , which please return . I have no doubt that there are a number of similar applications to the above , and
that persons are making a living out of the Craft , and that a good means of stopping it will be to relieve no one who cannot produce a proper certificate , on the back of which all relief should be endorsed . Yours truly , C . J . SAXBY . Leominster .