Lord Leigh's Criticism Of Ourselves.

the CHRONICLE for which his remarks were meant . We have no intention of entering into any controversy , but a few words of explanation seem called for , on the assumption at least that his lordship referred to us . We deeply regret that any comments of ours should have

given pain to any brethren in the province over which Lord Leigh has so long and so ably presided . He will pardon us , however , for doubting if either he or onr former critic , " P . M . 468 , " can have been at the pains of reviewing our article as a whole . Exception is taken to certain passages ,

but these must not be considered separately from the leader in which they occur . We were anxious to impress on our readers that the support accorded to our Masonic Institutions should be general , not sectional . Others have again and again enunciated the same doctrine long before this

journal came into being ; there was nothing novel , therefore , in our proposition . In the course of our analysis it was inevitable we should particularise certain sections as having either contributed or not contributed . We had previously , however , taken , as we thought , every possible

precaution , so that our object in making the analysis might not be misinterpreted . We had no desire to make—it was , indeed , our duty to avoid making—any invidious comparison between this and that Lodge , or Province . We suggested every reason that occurred to us at

the time , why certain of the Provinces might not have contributed on that particular occasion . Yet , in spite of precautions and suggestions , the propriety of our remarks is now for the second time publicly questioned , and on this occasion by one of the foremost members of tho

Craft , at one of our three annual Festivals . We are sorry this should have been done , but , as we have already hinted , we do not think our second any more than our first critic has fairly studied our remarks , and if so , his criticism is certainly premature . Lord Leigh complained that the

writer of the article—we assume he meant the journal in which the article appeared—had instituted a comparison between the subscriptions received from West Lancashire and those received from the other provinces and London . As a matter of fact , the article contains no such

comparison . The subscriptions were taken under three heads—London , Provinces , and Abroad . Not a word , however , was said about a comparison between London , provincial , and foreign subscriptions , nor is there anything to justify the idea that any such comparison was intended , As to

the provinces , they were dealt with in two categories , in alp habetical order . First were mentioned those which did not figure in the list ; then came those which contributed . On reaching West Lancashire we remarked— " West Lancashire , with 69 Lodges , grandly supported Lord Skelmersdale ,

its Grand Master , to the magnificent extent of £ 1 , 508 10 s " —the plain statement of a fact . Every one expected West Lancashire would support Lord Skelmersdale , West

Lancashire did support him , and we noted the fact , in order to explain why it was the other contributing provinces showed to less advantage , Lord Skelmersdale being the chairman of the Festival . Other remarks follow . The absence of

the Manchester Lodges is noted and regretted . The smallness of the Lincolnshire contributions is sought to be explained , and so , too , is the absence of Staffordshire from the list . Then follow our remarks , already quoted , about Warwickshire and Birmingham . To the latter , as to

Manchester , we gave what our first critic , " P . M . 468 , " called , " the conspicuousness of italics . " We justify this , as we do the following announcement : Warwickshire , with 26 Lodges , " grandly supported " Lord Leigh , its Grand Master , to the magnificent extent of—in round figures— £ 2 , 000 , at the Festival held three days since .

However , we are not now , nor were we then , instituting any comparison , either favourable or unfavourable , as between Warwickshire and other provinces . We made our analysis at the time , for a sufficient reason , distinctly and clearly laid down . We made , as we imagined , the needful

provision against any misinterpretation of our reason . In spite of this , both " P . M . 468 , " and Lord Leigh will have it—we say it with all deference—they know better than ourselves what it is we have done , and why we did it . We must ask our critics to judge us by our articles as we , not they , interpret them .

We are aware that when Lord Leigh presided some years since he was loyally supported by his province then , as now . We know , too , the service of Masonic charity generally is not neglected in Warwickshire , though , we honestly confess , we are not as well posted in the details as " P . M . 468 " and Warwickshire Craftsmen are likely

Lord Leigh's Criticism Of Ourselves.

to be . We cannot call to mind exactly when it was that we first learned that Lord Leigh would preside at the Boys' Festival just passed . We are not usually behindhand in the matter of news , and this reached us at an early date , as early as it did any other journal . We

cannot say when it was we first heard of Warwickshire stewards working hard for the Festival of Wednesday * Lord Leigh must be easily satisfied if , with no knowledge whatever of us personally , he is aware of our ignorance of certain points he enumerates . We have , however , neither

time nor space to'dwell further on his lordship ' s remarks . We have no objection to criticism , but we have a decided objection to our articles being described as other than they are , that is , as conveying a meaning they were never intended to bear . We have already explained why the article was written . We have once before disclaimed

emphatically other reasons attributed to us , and we have just grounds for complaint that , in spite of our disclaimer , the reasons we object to are still thrust upon us . We may have occasion to refer to the subject again ; for the moment let it suffice that Lord Leigh's idea of the article is not in strict accordance with the article itself .

Histories Of Our Lodges.

HISTORIES OF OUR LODGES .

W"E have received permission to publish from time to time the particulars which are obtained of the History of the various Lodges under the Grand Lodge of England , some of which wo fully expect will prove specially instructive , and reveal the presence in English

Freemasonry of very many distinguished men . The story of the formation , early career , vicissitudes and position of Lodges cannot but be interesting to every student of social

movements which have had important bearings upon our national history , and have strongly tinged our national life . We commence , this week , by narrating the career ofthe LODGE OF FRIENDSHIP , GREAT YARMOUTH .

On March 23 rd 1757 a Warrant was issued by tho Grand Lodge of England for a Lodgo to be held at the Dove , in the parish of St , Lawrence , Norwich , under the No . 223 . This document was unfortunately lost , and no records are forthcoming until 16 th September 1823 , when a Warrant of Confirmation was issued to " our right trusty and well beloved brethren Henry Davy , William Downing ,

William Coldham , John Browne , Henry Bansome , George Tompson , John Laccohee and others , by H . R . H . the Duke of Sussex G . M ., countorsigned by Sir John Doyle D . G . M ., W . H . White and E , Harper Grand Sees ., to continue the Lodge at the Pope ' s Head Inn , St . Petet ' s , Mancroft , Norwich ; it is therein recorded that , by the alteration in 1770 , the Lodge became No . 182 , in the year 1781 No .

148 , in 1792 No . 133 , and at the Union of 1813 No . 159 . To this , we are now enabled to add , that it shortly became No . 117 , and removed to the Bear Hotel , Great Yarmouth , whence in 1850 it migrated to the St . George ' s Tavern , thence in 1853 to the Duke ' s Head , and finally in 1860 to the Crown and Anchor Hotel in the same town , wbere it still meets . In 1862 , upon the last alteration of Lodge numbers , it received its present number , 100 , on the register .

In the year 18 o 3 it consisted of only 22 members , and some dim . culty being experienced in forming a Lodge , several brethren of Lodge " United Friends " ( then No . 392 , now 313 ) of the same town , volunteered to join and Officer No . 117 ; this proposal was cordially accepted , and the Lodge of Friendship has since that time pnrsued a uniform career of increasing usefulness and prosperity , averaging 30 members up to 1864 , with an annual increment of about 6 per annum since .

Its appreciation of zeal , ability , and urbanity has been evinced by the presentation of a handsome gold P . M . jewel to Bro . Oswald Diver in 1861 , of a silver salver to Bro . William Wright ( Secretary from 1861 to 1874 ) in 1874 , of a gold watch and chain to Bro . C . L . Chipper , field in 1870 , and of a P . M . jewel to Bro . James Bond in 1876 . To tho Masonic Boys' School the Lodge has contributed of late years tho

sum of 27 guineas , to the Girls' School 22 guineas , and to the R . M . Benevolent Institution 6 guineas . Its present Officers are Bros . E . J . Bonfellow W . M ., Richard Martins S . W ., R . W . Hubbard J . W ., O . Diver P . M . Treasurer , and D . R . Fowler Secretary . We notice that ten of its P . M . ' s have been honoured with Provincial rank , and that Bro . Rev . James Mangau , D . D ., LL . D ., P . G . Deacon of Norths and Hunts , a Past Grand Officer of Ireland , has joined its ranks this

year . The foregoing particulars have been furnished by the fraternal kindness and public spirit of W . Bro . James Bond , who adds the following interesting note : — " In a building situate in St . George's Row ( West ) , Great Yarmouth , which has not been used for Masonio purposes for upwards of 30 years , is a mural tablet , inscribed : — "A . L . 5828 . —W . T . Coke , Esq ., M . P ., Provincial Grand Master

Norfolk . —This Hall , erected by the Brethren of the United Friends , No . 585 , was dedicated to Masonry , Dec . 29 th 1824 , by J . Ives , Esq ., M . A ., F . R . S ., Deputy Provincial Grand Master , Richard Ferrier W . M ., Joseph Harper S . W ., James Sayers J . W . It cannot but be a subject of regret to the Lodges in Yarmouth that circumstances should not have allowed this Hall , specially erected for the performance of our mystic rites , to remain dedicated to the purpose for which it waa originally intended *