Correspondence.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE EBEEMASONS' MAGAZINE AND MASONIC jtflRROK . SIR AND BROTHER , —AS Brother Havers has thought proper—most unwarrantably in my opinion—to publish a correspondence between himself and Lord Carnarvon , and as I am somewhat concerned in the matter to which it refers , I must ask from your impartiality space for a few brief obser vations .

In the first place , permit me to say that if from the facts which that correspondence reveals Brother Havers derives any satisfaction , he is exceedingly grateful for very small mercies ; he has , it is true , shown that Brother Portal has , to a very trifling extent , misunderstood or misstated the precise language addressed to him in private conversation , but he has also proved to the Masonic world at large that which was before known only by a small section of it , viz ., that he ( Brother Havers ) is capable when engaged

in discussion in Grand Lodge of giving personal offence to a noble Brother , who is uniforml y , I may say , characteristically , courteous aud urbane to every one , and who obviously can carry forbearance even to a fault—for " there is a point beyond which forbearance ceases to be a virtue . " But Brother Havers , iu his letter of the 7 th instant , quoting from language which be appears to have used in Grand Lodge , says , that " in the expressions which he had just used be in no referred to Lord

Carnarway von ; " and in a subsequent part of the same letter disavows anything offensive or insulting to his lordship . Now , sir , I do not dare to say of Brother I-Iayers' statements , that which in his letter of the 11 th instant he says of Bro . Portal ' s—that "I gave no credit to it ; " for such language from any Mason who claims also to be considered a gentleman would be indefensible ; but this I will say , and say fearlessly , that if the expres sion used by Brother Havers , which I maintain was most offensive and

altogether unprovoked , ' accompanied as it was by a tone and gesture still more offensive , did not point directly to the noble lord , and no one else , as " the head of a party" ( for those words formed part ofthe expression ) , why then my eyes and ears , and the eyes and ears of many other Brethren present on the occasion , are lying witnesses—ancl the indignant protest which at the moment I rose and made against such language being used in that assembl y , can only be construed into an insult to Bro . Havers , which has to be atoned forBut

yet . although we must now accept—since stern courtesy demands it—Bro . Ilavcrs ' s denial of any intentional offence to our noble Brother , we at least may ask—docs he thereby improve bis position ? It will be remembered that the language complained of was used by Bro . Havers on my being seen by him to step forward from my seat to speak to the noble lord ; if , therefore , it was not intended for his lordship , why then most assuredlit was meant for methe words "the head of a party

y ; , " being used , I presume , to express tbe physical , and not intellectual , greatness of the individual ; ancl I have yet to learn wherein consists the clilf ' crence between an offence offered to a Brother of exalted rank and station , and the humblest member of Grand Lodge ? I am , Sir and Brother , yours fraternall y , J . WHITMORK . 125 , Oxford-street , December 23 rd , 1808 .

[ The above did not reach us until Monday last , Jan . 17 th . Surely every one present at Grand Lodge must be aware that the " head of a party " referred to — was Bro . the Rev . G . R , " Portal—not Bro . Whitmore , or Lord Carnarvon . E D . ]