Correspondence.

that No . 11 of Pine 1731 , is No . IS of to-day , is correct , it must be-No . 9 of Cole , described as meeting at the " Dundee Arms , at their own private room , Ked Lion-street , Wapping , second and fourth Thursday , " and Constituted in 1722 . All this is perplexing enough , aud the perplexity is not diminished , when AVO find , on the one hand , Bro . Hnghan tracing the No . 11 of Pine 1734 , as the No . 18

( Old Dundee ) , of to-day , and on tho other Bro . Gould connecting it with Fortitude and Old Cumberland , No . 12 , of to-day . Ia any attempt to set this matter straight , it is obviously impossible for me to take upon myself to follow both Bro . Hnghan and Bro . Gould iu tracing tho conclusions at which they have severally arrived .

However , for purposes of comparison , I will first append a table , showing ( il ) tho existing Lodges and thoso iu Pine's List for 1734 , with Avhich iu Bro . Hughan ' s opinion , they correspond ; and ( ) Pine ' s of 1729 and 1730 , aud the list of Book of Constitutions for 1738 , and the existing Lodges , with which , in Bro . Gould ' s opinion , they cor . respond .

( " ) PINE , 1734 . 1 King ' s Arms , St . Paul's Churchyard 3 Horu , Westmiuster

4 Swan , Hampstead 6 New Bond Street 7 Hummer , Queen Street , Cheapsiue

8 Devil ( Union Lodge ) Temple Bar 9 Tun , Noble Street 10 King ' s Arms , New Bond Street 11 Queen ' s Head , Knave ' s Acre 13 Covent Garden

HUUHAN , 1876 . Antiquity , No . 2 . It . Som . House aud Inverness , No . 4 .

Friendship No . 6 . British , No . 8 . Westminster aud Keystone , No . 10 . Fortitude and O . C . Lodge , No . 12 . Tuscan . No . 14 .

ltoyal Alpha , No . 16 . Old Dundee , No . 18 . R . Kent Lodge of Antiquity , No . 20 .

( 6 . ) PINE 1729 . 1 St . Paul's Charchyard 3 Westminster 4 Ivy Lane

6 Clare Street ; 7 Behind tho Royal Exchange 9 Noblo Street 10 Brewer Street

11 Knave ' s Acre 12 Swithin ' a Alley 13 Duchy Laue

PINE 1730 . 1 King's Arms iu Do 3 Horn Tavern Do 4 Swan , Hampstead

6 Tom ' s Coffee House Do 7 Hummer , Queen St ., Cheapsido

9 One Tun in Noble Street 10 Lion and Shield , Brewer Street 11 Queen ' s Head , Knave ' s Aero 12 Three Tuns in Swithin ' s Alley 13 Anchor , Dufcchy Lano

CONSTITUTION 1738 . 1 King ' s Arms in Do 2 Horn Tavern Do 3 Shakespeare ' s Head ,

Marlborough Street 5 Braund ' s Head , New Bond Street 6 Rummer , Queen St . Do

8 Red Cross , Barbican 9 King ' s Arms Tavern , New Bond Street 10 Queen ' s Head , Knave ' s Aero 11 Castlo

12 Bury ' s Coffee House , Bridge ' s St .

GOULD 1878 . Antiquity No . 2 R . S . H . aud Inverness No . 4 Friendship No . 6

British No . 8 Westminster and Keystone No . 10 Royal Alpha No . 16 Tuscan No , 14

Fortitude and O . C . No . 12 Old Dundee No . 18 R . Kent L . of Antiquity No . 20

Classing these together aud giving only the numbers of the Lodgea in tho several Lists , we find the following result : —

Pine Pine Pino Const . Hughan Gould 1729 . 1730 . 1731 . 1738 . 1876 . 1878 . No . No . No . No . No . No . 11112 2 3 3 3 2 4 4 4 4 4 3 6 6 6 6 6 5 8 8 H * n « in m

8 8 8 7 12 — 9 9 9 8 14 16 10 10 10 9 16 14 11 11 11 10 18 12 12 12 12 11 — 18 13 13 13 12 20 20

Thus Bros . Hnghan and Gould agree as to Nos . 2 , 4 , 6 , 8 , 10 , and 20 , while they differ as to Nos . 12 , 14 , 16 , aud 18 . As to tho former , nothing further need be said ; but as to the latter , I may , perhaps , with the dates of constitution , be able to throw some light on the matter , though I labour under the disadvantage of having only copies of a few lists available . Taking the fonr , about which there is this disagreement , I note , as regards our present

No . 12 . —Bro . Hughan connects this with No . 8 of Pine ' s Lists for 1729 , 1730 , and 1734 , and the Constitutions List of 1738 . The date of constitution in all three is stated to have been April 25 th 1722 . In Cole ' s List for 1763 , no Lodge constituted on snch a day is included , and Bro . Gould notes that it was erased on 4 th April 1744 . —See § 7 , List No . 5 of his in last week's number of the

FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE . The latter connects it with No . 11 , meeting in 1729 , 1730 , and 1731 at the Queen's Head , in Knave ' s Acre , No . 10 of 1738 , meeting afc same place , No . 10 , afc the George and Dragon , Oxford Market , in 1740 , the Swan , in same locality in 1744 , and tho Fish and Bell in Charles-street , Soho-sqnare up to 1765—in such case it would be No . 8 in Cole ' s List 1763 . He

adds that in 1775-G ib met at the Roebuck in Oxford-street , and in 1781 was named the Old Fortitude , which some timo between 1814 and 1832 was changed to its present title . Be it added , in favour of Bro . Gould's theory , thafc if 27 th February " 1722 " and same day " 1722-3 " are one and the same , tho dates in all the lists I have given bear out this statement .

No . 14 . —Bro . Hughan makes this tho same with No . 9 of Pine ' s 1729 , 1730 , and 1734 , and No . 8 of Const . List 1738 . The date in all these cases is " May 1722 , " and there is a Lodge constituted afc this date in Cole ' s List 1763 , meeting in "David-street , Grosvenorsqnare . " Bro . Gould makes it the same with No . 10 of Pine ' s 1729 , 1730 , and 1731 , and No . 9 of the Const . List 1738 . The date in theso

cases is 25 th November 1722 , aud in Colo ' s List for 1763 there is a Lodge ( No . 7 ) of this date meeting in New Bond-street . No . 16 . —Bro . Hnghan connects this with No . 10 of Pino 1729 , 1730 , 1734 , & c , & c , tho date being May 1722 . In fact Bro . Hughan ' s present Nos . 14 and 16 are Bro . Gould ' s Nos . 16 and 14 . No . 18 . —Bro . Gould traces this to No . 12 of Pine ' s 1729 , 1730 , and

1734 , No . 11 of Const . List 1738 . The date of Constitution is given in 1729 , aud 1730 , as March 27 th , 1723 ; in 1735 , no date is affixed : in 1738 it is given as March 172 | . In Cole ' s List , 1763 , there is a Lodge ( No . 9 ) corresponding with this in the particulars as to place of meeting—namely , the Dundee Aims , Wapping , but the date is given as " 1722 . " This , of course , need not be a discrepancy , as what ym should now speak of as March 1723 , was often enough spoken of

Correspondence.

as in the year 1722 . Bro . Hughan makes this agree with No . 11 of Pine ' s 1729 , 1730 , 1734 , No . 10 of 1738 , the date of Constitution being Feb . 27 th , 1722 or 1722-3 , as variously stated . To sum nr » the case . Bro . Hnwhan ' s nresenh No . 12 waa . accordiner

— . . j . 0 ___ _ I _ . _ . — .. — , _ 0 to Bro . Gould , erased in 1744 ; Bro . Hughan ' s No . 14 is Bro . Gould's No . 16 ; Bro . Hughan's No . 16 is Bro . Gould's No . 14 ; and Bro . Gould ' s No . 18 , according to Bro . Hughan , has disappeared from the T . ' -t

I think I can seo how the discrepancies have arisen , but I must leave these redoubtable champions to explain them . Fraternally yours , YOUR REVIEWER or HUGHAN ' S REPRINT or PINE ' LIST HOR 1734 .

Conflicting Accounts About Thomas Dunckerley.

CONFLICTING ACCOUNTS ABOUT THOMAS DUNCKERLEY .

To the Editor of the FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —Permit me to point out that your very frequent correspondent , Bro . Jacob Norton , in his letter last week respecting the lateBro . Thomas Dunckerley is entering on avery difficult , if not an impossible task , iu his endeavour to weaken the Masonic ver « sion of that eminent brother ' s biography . 1 had nofc read the account

in the Gentleman ' s Magazine , though I had seen mention of it in the account of Dunckerley in the Cyclopcedia of Freentasonrg in question , and I am of the same opinion as the writer of the latter , that there is no " good reason in re-opening a question difficult in itself , and so long buried . " However , my object in writing these presents is to show that the more the two accounts are analysed , the greater

reason is there to believe that no antecedent improbability exists against the correctness of the Masonic version . On the contrary , I am inclined to think , that alt things considered , the version given in in the Freemasons' Magazine for 1793 is the more likely one . I am fco a certain extent confirmed in this opinion by the account by himself , and " communicated in his own handwriting , by his executors " fco the

same Freemasons' Magazine some time after his death . —Vide Free , masons' Magazine , Vol . VI ., 1769 , pp 96-100 . I say there ia no antecedent improbability against the truth of the Masonic version of Dunckerley ' s parentage . In the account published in 1793 , and therefore in Dunckerley ' s lifetime , to which Bro . Norton refers , the question is only briefly mentioned

all thafc is said being contained in the passage quoted b y Bro . Norton . The reason for this brevity is furnished by Bro . White , the writer of the Memoir , who adds , " but as this is a matter of much delicacy , our readers must excuse us from entering into further particulars , and permit us to draw a veil over this part of the life we propose to record , which , were wo afc liberty to illustrate , would

prove a most interesting part of the history . " But when Dunckerley was dead this motive of delicacy no longer existed , and accordingl y we find in Freemasons' Magazine , Vol . VI ., pp 96-100 , a full circum . stantial account , which had been , as we have said , " communicated in his own handwriting , by his executors , " and " fully contradicts the many idle stories that have for some time been in circulation

respecting him . " The account is too long for quotation , but it was communicated to Dunckerley himself tho day following his mother ' s funeral by a Mrs . Piukney , who had been many years Mary Dunckerley ' s neighbour in Somerset House . Tho substance is as follows : —In November 1723 , Avhile Mr . Dunckerley senior was at Chatsworth , on some business for the Duke of Devonshire , Mrs . Dunckerley visited a Mrs . Meekiu at Lady Ranelagh'a . " Mr . L- —y