An Error Of Judgment.

you aro hot permitted to utter a word in its favour ? Therefore , it is generally held that Lord Carnarvon did no moro than ho was justified in doing when he advocated the acceptance by Grand Lodge of tho Committee ' s report . But he mus t pardon some of us for saying that he overstepped

tho limits of discretion when he urged so forcibly on the brethren present that his proposal should command their unanimous approval . Had this been a mere figure of speech which his lordship adopted in commending his motion to the notice of Grand Lodge , no one would have cared

anything . Every one hopes that a proposition of his will obtain universal assent from the Society or body of mon to whom it is submitted . But there was something beyond this in the Pro Grand Master ' s advocacy of this particular proposal . Ordinarily , he remarked , he courted criticism ;

but on this particular occasion , and in reference to this particular proposition , ho was specially anxious that members should forego their own predilections , if they had any , in favour of adopting some other course , in order that Grand Lodge should evince perfect

unanimity . There aro many who think this was straining the duty of an advocate . The Pro Grand Master could havo no reason in supposing that the brethren would not accord to his proposal a generous and , if possible , a unanimous support . Whatever the nature of any

proposal he submitted , it would be such as to command respect , if not approval . An opinion is abroad that his lordship would have acted more prudently had he submitted his case simply on its merits , fulfilling , of course , his duty as proposer to the utmost of his

great ability , but without going further . All of us are agreed as to the propriety of commemorating this particular event of tho Prince ' s return from India , but not as to the superiority of this or that form of memorial over all other forms . It sometimes happens , when it is

found difficult or impossible to reconcile conflicting views , that some one appears on the scene as a kind of Beus ex Machind , and suggests a plan which people , finding there is no chance of carrying out their own views , most willingly support . There may have been something of this

kind on the present occasion , and Lord Carnarvon may have been the individual who stepped forward at the critical moment , and extricated Grand Lodge from its embarrassment . But this after all is only surmise . When Lord Carnarvon so seriously deprecated all criticism of his project , there

had barely been time to learn its nature , much less to discuss its merits . It is only by a critical examination of various plans to fulfil some definite purpose that people can learn which among them is the best , and yet the proposer of this Lifeboat scheme invited unanimity without any

previous criticism . This , however , is not so much the ground of this objection . It is to be feared that others may follow the example thus set them , and those others may not be as wise and considerate men as our present Pro Grand Master . The Craft has already had a foretaste of the

damage that may be clone to a good cause by imprudent advocacy , in the case of Bro . Havers' scheme for a memorial . He , forsooth , must needs press its notice on the acceptance of Grand Lodge , on the ground that it had already obtained the approval of the illustrious personage it most nearly

concerned . This , of course , was a great offence against good taste , which no one in his senses would dream of placing in the same category with our Pro Grand Master ' s excess of zeal for the cause he advocated . But there may be other Havers in the days to come , who may take

advantage of tho precedent thus established , and urge unduly on the brethren the acceptance of some ill-considered and , perhaps , impracticable scheme . There are many who have said , and still hold , that a gift presented to each of our Charitable Institutions would have been preferable ; but

all of us will no doubt waive our preference if it turn out the Committee ' s proposal finds the most favourwith Grand Lodge . It is the duty of brethren to criticise the various projects which come under their notice ; but when a majority

has accepted one of them , then it is the duty of the minority to sacrifice their own predilections , and support it with as much loyalty as though it had emanated from themselves .

[ The above has been " communicated to us for insertion in these columns , as representing the views of certain brethren on a point of some importance . We do not feel justified in refusing the request , but we do not hold ourselves responsible for the views to which the writer has given expression . —ED , FREEMASON ' CHRONICLE . ]

Correspondence.

CORRESPONDENCE .

We do not hold ourselves responsible for the opinions of our Cor . respondents . We cannot undertake to return rejected communications . All Letters must bear the name and address of the Writer , not necessarily for publication , but as a guarantee of good faith . HUGHAN'S LIST OF LODGES , A . D . 1734 . To the Editor of THE FBEEMASON ' S CHRONICLE . DEAR SIK AND BROTHER , —I am obliged for your fraternal review of my edition of Pine's List of Lodges A . D . 1731 , published in tho Masonic Magazine for November , and since issued separately and for private circulation . Of course , my notes were brief , and intended simply to be explanatory of certain difficult points only . Many of

your suggestions are certainly most ingenious , and may yet turn out to be appropriate and accurate , but as yet I havo not been able to fit some of them into the positions you intend them to occupy . You are quite correct in hinting that No . 55 was held at the "Rummer , " not " Cup , " and that " Queen's Head " is moro likely to be correct than " Queen Anne . " The titles are a-guess—in most cases—made by the

transcriber , as the " signs " of the houses are engraved side by side with tho particulars of the Lodges , and frequently it is not easy to decide exactly what they are intended to represent , many not being so easily interpreted as the " Goose and Gridiron . " In the Masonic Magazine for January , I shall present to the Craft a list of Lodges printed A . D . 1734 , which was copied from Pine ' s of 1734 , and which

has the names of the signs in which tho Lodges met exactly described , just as many are in tho Book of Constitutions , A . D . 1738 . The dates of tho Lodges held at Hamburg , Boston , and Valenciennes are credited to the year 1733 in the Boole of Constitutions , but , as 1 havo pointed out before , the foreign Lodges may generally be assumed to be ono year earlier of constitution than the English Lodges which immediately

follow them , should no dates be assigned to the former . This hu . s been proved to be tho caso in the three mentioned , so also with No . 79 , Philadelphia , and others . Thory was wrong in stating No . 90 was granted A . D . 1729 . An examination of the list of 1734 ' proves that tho last Lodge chartered in that year was No . 60 . Dr . Oliver , in Illustrations of Masonry ( a most valuable book ) , is right in speaking

of No . 10 as the Loclgo which received tho members of " No . 2 . " That No . 2 , however , was in existence A . D . 1734 , but was extinct in 1738 , so the number three of the former year was tbe number two of the latter , and hence number eleven of the one period was number ten of the other . You are not correct in assuming it was the three of Bawlinson ' s and Pine ' s lists -which , surrendered its ancient privileges ,

and joined the "Old Dundee , " as it was in reality the then number two which was the original number three of A . D . 1717 . The four of 1717 was the three of 1734 , the two of 1738 to 1813 , and the four again from the " Union " to tbe present time . , My reason for stating so positively that No . 13 of Pine ' s list of 1734 , and held at London , is the present No . 20 of Chatham is , that

the Constitution of 1756 has the following : — "Grapes , Chatham , March 28 th , 1723 . " This agrees with the Lodge in question . There are also other reasons , but probably the foregoing will suffice . I beg also to draw your attention to the fact that , in the FBEEMASON ' S CHRONICLE for 21 st October 1876 , an extract is given from tbe Bye-Laws of the Prov . G . L . of Kent , in which it is declared that- " it

appears by the records of the Grand Lodge that a warrant , bearing date the 28 th March 1723 , was issued under the seal of Masonry , enabling certain brethren therein named to open and hold a Lodge of Freemasons at the ' \ Crown , ' Cripplegate , London , under , called or hnoivn by the number 13 ... . and in the year 1748 the said Lodge iuas removed to Chatham , in the county of Kent , and by the

closing up of the list of Lodges in the year 1756 it became number 10 ; and which Lodge ... at the Union . . . became No . 20 . " With respect to the " Strong Man Lodge , " if it were warranted ( as stated in all the lists ) A . D . 1734 , then it must be the number 128 . If it were No . 110 , then the warrant was not issued in 1734 , but , as the list states , " 2 nd February 1732-3 . " If the latter , then it ceased

to exist , by the list of 1776 , long before the " Union of 1813 . " I have the " Strong Man " Lodge noted by name in various lists from an early date , but always under the year 1734 . There has only been this one Lodge in connection with the year 1734 for very many years . Even in 1776 it was the only 1734 London Lodge , although , at that time , there was one of that same year for Plymouth . In the

Constitution of 1738 occurs a London Lodge of 5 th November 1734 . The dates of tho "Warrants , unfortunately , are not an absolute test , as in early days they do not appear to havo been accurately kept . No . 35 of Pine's could not bo the No . 35 of to-day at Cowes , as the former was chartered in 1724 , and the latter in 1731 . No . 35 of Pine's was originally held at Portsmouth , and was alive even so late

as 1832 , being the No . 17 of the " Moderns " at the " Union . " Tho Medina Lodge will doubtless turn out to be afc one time a London Lodge , just as with the present No . 20 , Chatham . I have doubtless said enough to satisfy you that I have carefully examined the important and valuable Eecords and Lists of Lodges afc my elbow , before deciding as to the numerical position of any of the many Lodges mentioned in my last publication .

With best wishes , fraternally yours , WM . JAMES HUGHAN . [ We have referred the above commnnication to " Our Reviewer " and append the following observations which he has thought it necessary to make ] : — ( 1 ) Lodge No . 11 ( Pine ' s and Rawlinson ' s Lists ) now , in Bro-Hughan ' s opinion , No . 18 . —Substantially , Bro . Hughan and myself