Correspondence.

CORRESPONDENCE .

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

ELECTION OF GRAND TREASURER . To the Hditor of the FREEMASON ' CHRONICLE . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —The discussion on thia subject is getting decidedly warm . The authors of the now notorious Circular—a few self . eleoted arbiters of things Masonio—have got more than they bargained for . Not content with issuing their Circular , some of them have rushed into print in the columns of your contemporary

with the boldness of a better cause . En parenthise , I cannot nnder . stand your contemporary . He appears to me to be running with the hare and hunting with the hounds . The Ijlditor sip-ned the Circular , and permitted it to appear in full in his columns , whether as an advertisement or as a fulmination , with which he identified himself in his official capacity , I know not . Apparently it came forth with

editorial sanction , yet without the exhibition of that courage whioh comes of conscious strength . I recognise the fact that your contemporary has permitted several letters to appear on the other side of the question , and I mention particularly those of Bro . While ; but then , that was inevitable . A refusal would at once have demonstrated unfair partisanship , whicb no journal could long afford to manifest

without great danger to its character and influence . Your own case is so different that I think I am justified in calling attention to the matter . From the first , sir , you have not wavered in your view of the question . You have taken your stand upon the principle affirmed last year , when Bro . Col . Creaton was superseded by Bro . Allcroft , not because the former was unworthy of being continued in office

not even because new blood was necessary , but because opinion had matured into resolve that tbe office of Grand Treasurer , being purely an honorary post , should be conferred npon some worthy brother each year according to the judgment of Grand Lodge . You carefully refrained from mentioning the name of any brother who should follow Bro . Allcroft , thus avoiding the very appearance of dictation , whioh

is so offensive to men whose independence is strengthened by the principle of equality upon which the Order is founded . A truce , however , to these comparisons . I merely mention them because , to my mind , you appear to have taken the wiser and the better course , to have considered principles without reference to persons , and to have done good educational work , preparatory to the time , now

drawing nigh , when the brethren will be called upon to act . It is like onr throwing tbe thrice slain to repeat the arguments that have been advanced in favour of the independence of Grand Lodge , and I shall not trench npon yonr space to repeat what you have permitted me to state already . I must ask , however , to be allowed to say that I have followed the practice of dealing with

principles rather than with persons , except where it was impossible to avoid naming a brother because of his identification with the only object at issue . Argumentum ad hominem has not only become per * missible ,. but absolutely necessary . The circular itself is a challenge , and although Bro . Marshall has not personally taken np the gage any more than Bro . Allcroft has personally thrown it down , yet the two

brethren stand before the Craft as the representatives of two hostile camps , and neither can now escape criticism . I shall not enter into charges and recriminations , nor seek to embitter the contest by un . necessary personal reflections . But I cannot close my eyes to facts , nor shonld I be faithful to the views I hold were I not to use the information that has now become public property . I have never

uttered an nnkind word with regard to Bro . Allcroft , nor have I harboured an ungenerous thought respecting him . Others have advanced reasons in his favour whioh I have combatted , and now the time has come when argument may fairly be supplemented with comparisons of a personal nature . I have not sought this mode of war * fare ; it is forced by circumstances , and in a great measure rendered

necessary by the very unwise action of a body of men who have mistaken their own crotchets for justice and have asserted their own judgment against the right of opinion of the mass who compose Grand Lodge . In the abstract there are no pre-eminently distinguished Free , masons ; all are on one level . The Craft is a pure Republic , based

npon liberty , equality , and fraternity , the aim universal brotherhood , the end charity . In practice , however , those who contribute most to tbe development of the Order , who render more palpable services than those of other brethren are honoured with distinction . Some of these are conferred with the common consent of the Craft , others are made by those high in office , and a few are subject to election ,

The office of Grand Treasurer comes in the latter category , and in the nature of things it is impossible to altogether ignore personal considerations . It is always an unpleasant task to discuss the relative merits of brethren in the cause of charity , bnt here I have no alternative . The questions have been asked—What have Bros . Alcroft and Marshall done that they should be hononred at all ? and what has one

done more than the other to claim precedence in the present contest ? The answer shall be in Bro . While ' s own language , and from facts he has gathered from official sources . He says : — Bro . Allcroft , in his 40 odd years of Masonio life , has given £ 16810 s to the Eoyal Masonic Institution for Boys , while Bro . Horace Marshall , in four years , has given £ 510 ! To the Girls' Bro .

Allcroft , in his 40 odd years , has given 160 guineas , without any Stewardship , while Bro . Horace Marshall , who has served four Stewardships to this Charity , has given , in his four years , the sum of five hundred guineas ! To the " Old People's" Institution Bro . Allcroft has given £ 117 5 s , and has served one Stewardship , while Bro . Horace Marshall , who has served a Stewardship each year of

Correspondence.

his Masonio life , has given six hundred guineas ! and will serve bis sixth Stewardship on the 26 th inst . The Masonio Charities have benefited by the existence of Bro . Allcroft in the more than 40 years of his Masonio life to the amount of £ 446 15 s , while they have

benefited to the total of one thousand six hundred and forty pounds in the four years of Bro . Marshall ' s life . Here I leave the matter for the present , and am , Sir and Brother , Yours fraternally , WATCHMAN .

WAS ANT KIND OF A No . 79 A PHILADELPHIA LODGE ? To the Editor of the FREEMASON ' CHRONICLE . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —I was truly glad to see once more a letter from Bro . Hnghan in yonr journal of 5 th January , and I thank his friends for inducing him to write it . Bro . Hughan concedes that the Lodge No . 79 on the English Beoord , was an English Lodge . But , says he , " The occupant of No . 79 of Philadelphia ( America )

being the first , closely followed by the London successor , " hence he claims that we are both right . Further on he says : — " Because there is the reference in the' Pocket Companion' of 1735 to a Lodge in Philadelphia as No . 79 on the English Register , which was held at the Hoop in Water Street . It seems to me mnch more likely that the compiler of this List had seen a Boll of Lodges

with the Philadelphia Lodge inserted , than that he wrongly filled np the blank with such particulars , for why should he give such information as to Philadelphia , if there were no grounds for the statement ?" Now , be it remembered , that the Dublin reprinter did not compile the said List , but copied it from the original English edition of the " Pocket Companion . " It was William Smith , the author of the said

" Pocket Companion , " who compiled the List , and Bro . Smith left No . 79 blank ; but the Dublin reprinter filled np the blank with " Hoop , Water St ., " & o . I can cite hundreds of assertions in Masonic books which are entirely baseless . For instance , the Square worn by Grand Master Sir Christopher Wren revealed to Dr . Oliver that the said William Smith was a D . D . Now , if Dr . Oliver had not

made so many groundless revelations on the authority of the said Square , I would not have questioned the " D . D . " statement ; bnt as it is , I cannot believe it without further confirmation . Indeed , there is scarcely a Masonio book without groundless assertions , and why I should pin my faith on the nnanthorised Dublin reprint in preference to the statement of Bro . W . Smith himself , Bro . Hnghan should

explain . In Bro . Hughan ' s article in the Voice of Masonry , September 1875 , he said : " When we come across an engraved List of 1733 to 1735 it will , doubtless , agree with the Dublin List of 1735 . " Well ! Bro . Hnghan since then has come across a List engraved by Pine , of 1734 , bnt Pine's List confirms tbe List in the original English edition of

the " Pocket Companion " of 1735 , and in Pine ' s List No . 79 is also blank . Abont the same time that Bro . H . communicated Pine ' s List of 1734 to the Masonic Magazine , November 1876 , I happened to come across Bawlinson ' s List in the Freemason's Monthly Magazine , p 81 , 1855 , and I called attention in this Journal to the fact that , in Rawliuson's List of 1733 , No . 79 is also blank .

Now I will say something about the old Lodge Lists . The earliest Lodge Lists were compiled without the Lodges being numbered . In 1731 an order seems to have been issued by the Grand Lodge for each Lodge to send to the Grand Secretary a list of the names of its members . These were ranged according to seniority in the Record I described in my former communication , viz ., to each Lodge was

devoted one or more pages . The number of tbe Lodge , followed by the name of the Public House where it held its meetings , was at the head of the page ; and this was supplemented with the names of the officers and members of the said Lodge . In Bro . Gould's " Four Old Lodges , " p 60 , that list ( without the names of the members ) , may be seen , which ends with No . 104 . In the Record , as well as in

Bro . Gould s copy , no mention is made of the days when the Lodges held their meetings , nor of dates of their respective Constitutions . The description of Rawliuson ' s List in the Freemason ' s Monthly Magazine , 1855 , corresponds with the above description of the 1730-32 Record in Freemasons' Hall . The only difference between them is , Dr . Rawlinson filled up only some of the pages with the

names of the members , and most of them he left blank ; he may probably have intended to fill them up at some future time . Rawliuson ' s List is also minus of the days of Lodge meetings and dates of Constitution . On referring to the list on page 51 ( "Four Old Lodges " ) , I find that No , 104 , the last one of the list , " Virgin Inn , Derby , " was constituted 14 th September 1732 . The last Lodge of

Rawlinson s , No . 116 , was constituted in 1733 , somewhere between 23 rd May and 26 th July . Dr . Rawlinson was an Antiquary and LL . D ., and a member of the R . S . In short , he was a man of means , a gentleman , and a scholar ; from the Gentleman's Magazine I learn that he died 5 th April 1755 . Dr . Rawlinson was a Grand Steward in 1734 . It is evident that he copied his List from the Grand Lodge

Record , and he added all the Lodges from 104 to 116 from some subsequent record . Now , if the Grand Secretary had not informed him that No . 79 was erased , the Doctor would not have left that number vacant ; and if the Grand Secretary had known that there was another No . 79 in Philadelphia , he would have told Brother Rawlinson abont it . Bro . William Smith did not copy bis List in 1734 from Rawliuson's

List ; they vary in the names of the Public Houses . Smith brought down his List to No . 126 , and , doubtless , he got his information about the erasure of No . 79 , as Rawlinson had done , from head quarters . Smith's List is improved by the addition of tbe days of the meetings of the Lodges . Pine , when compiling his list in 1734 , must also have received his information about the erasure of No . 79 from headquarters , but he