Correspondence.

Correspondence .

1 We do notliolil ourselves responsible for the opinions expressed by our correspondents , but we wish , in a spirit of fair play to all , to permit—within certain necessary limits—free discussion . j

LODGE OF FRIENDSHIP , No . 44 . To ihe Editor of the " Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , Bro . Heywood's discursive letter shows how fully permeated he is with that " large amount of credulity " to which he refers , when he deliberately asserts that " The present Lodge of Friendship has met regularly from 1755 to the present time . " Such a statement should undoubtedly be substantiated by proof , but none is furnished , and so I ask him to supply this evidence , which we

may fairly assume he considers his own lodge records will enable him to do . Most assuredly he will not find any evidence of such continuous meetings elsewhere , and not even the erroneous recital in the warrant of confirmation , issued in 1835 , will avail him for the purpose . As Bro . Heywood treats the Grand Lodge " Records , " including , of course , their registers and minute books , as being , in his opinion , " mere uncorroborated quotations and curiosities of Masonic literature , " one is tempted to enquire where ( if at all ) the facts are to be sought for and obtained ?

The three assertions specifically set forth in Bro . Heywood ' s letter , I do not hesitate to affirm are not only unsupported by independent and corroborative testimony , but are , as matters of fact , absolutely incorrect . It is most desirable that this subject should be thoroughly ihvestigated , so that the truth may be manifested , and your readers duly informed of the facts known to me in relation thereto , with such brief observations thereon as may be necessary . But , prior to this , I would draw attention to two other facts that must not be overlooked in arriving at an accurate conclusion upon this matter . The

first is , the fact that it was the general custom for the Grand Lodge of the "Ancients" tore-issue the numbers-oi their extinct warrants ( not the warrants themselves ) to entirely new organisations , by which arrangement new lodges obtained positions higher on the roll than those to which their real ages entitled them ; the second fact being the difficulty both Grand Lodges had to encounter and overcome , through their disability ( occasioned by the Act of 1799 ) to issue new warrants during the first decade of this century ; but for fuller information about this , my " Handy Book " may be consulted .

On 1 Sth June , 1755 , a warrant was granted by the Grand Lodge of the "Ancients" to certain brethren to meet at St . Ann ' s Church and Mitre , Manchester , which bore the number 39 . This warrant , evidently , was lost , for on the 25 th March , 1775 , a " Renewal Warrant " was issued on payment of the nominal charge of six shillings , the lodge then meeting at the Black-a-moor ' s Head , Old Churchyard , Manchester . This warrant of renewal was cancelled on 5 th June , 1793 , and the first lodge , No . 39 , thereupon ceased to exist .

Nearly two years later , i . e ., on 4 th March , 1795 , the number 39 was re-issued on a new warrant , bearing that date , for a new lodge to meet at the Queen ' s Head , Old Churchyard , Manchester , the Grand Lodge minutes expressly stating that this number was " Revived and granted to Bro . Watson and others , In lc of No . 39 , " showing that the lirst No . 39 was defunct , "and it was made a condition precedent to the granting of this new warrant that the " old warrant [ was ] to be

transmitted previous to revival . " It is clear that not only had the lirst No . 39 absolutely ceased to exist , but that it was thc warrant of 1775 ( not 1755 ) that was to be transmitted to Grand Lodge , in whose archives it has been preserved , and where I carefully examined it in 1 SS 6 " . This second Lodge No . 39 had but a brief existence , as is proved by BroS Heywood's own letter , and it was evidently treated by the Grand Lodge authorities as extinct .

On the Sth February , 1803 , a petition was signed by seven Regular Registred Master Masons , " who were" desirous to Revive the Warrant No . 39 , " which was stated to be then in their possession . This , of course , must have been the warrant of 4 th March , 1 795 , for the reasons above stated . The petition , which is in the usual form for a warrant for a new lodge , was recommended by

the Masters and Wardens of Lodges Nos . 201 , 275 , 278 , 289 , 29 6 , and 297 , all of Manchester , and was signed in Lodge No . 201 on the Sth February , 1803 . The prayer of the petition was granted , the same bearing these endorsements : " No . 39 . Renewal 23 rd Febry ., 1 S 03 , 1 st Monday , Horse Shoes , Old Schambles , Manchester , Entd . G . fo . 7 and 10 , " and " Petition for the Revival of No . 39 . 2 G's reed . 23 rd Feb ., 1 S 03 . "

Whether this " Revival" was effected by means ot a new document or of an endorsement upon the warrant of 1795 is not certain , the latter not being in Grand Lodge—nor is it material—but bearing in mind the preliminary facts before referred to , the result would be precisely the same . This warrant ot 23 rd February , 1803 , is the first and earliest authority forthe existing Lodge of

Friendship , which document , having either been lost , or " become defaced and illegible , " was superseded , on 29 th June , 1835 , by a warrant of confirmation containing a reference to the warrant of iSth June , 1755 , but which reference was evidently inserted therein through a want ol knowledge as to the true facts ot the case as above set forth .

The foregoing facts I leave to your readers' impartial judgment , and will occupy but a short space further in commenting upon some strange expressions in Bro . Heywood ' s letter . He says : "It is clear the lodge did not exchange the 1755 Wairant until 1803 . " Assuming his meaning to be that the lodge did make such an exchange in

1803 , I ; : ilirm tlo statement to be altogether erroneous , and without any foundation . As I l * . a \ e previously shown , the 1755 warrant did not exist , otherwise that of 1775 would never have been issued , ar . el the 1775 warrant we know was returned in 1795 , to \ Vi *< it if there was any " exchange" in 1803 , it could only have been b y the return ol the warrant e . f 1795 , but even this is very questionable , for if that warrant had been returned , it would in all probability be in the Grand Lodge archives at the present time .

Bro . Heywood seems to attach great importance lo his statement that "the exchanging of the 1755 for the 1803 warrant in 1803 w * 1 * * a transaction founded on mutual concessions relative to the dispute tb ; : t bad continued for seven years , " but he dees not tell -os what that dispute was , although subsequently he does allude to the lodge having " met for seven years without the sunt tion of the Grand Lodge 1 " which practically confirms the belief 1 have expressed—that the second No . 39 , of 1795 , had but a brief existence . To liro . Heywood ' s propositions or assertions I brielly say , for the reasons , and based on the facts before

cited—1 . That the recital in thu warrant of confirmation is not in accordance with the fact , and I regret to have- to add that it is unfortunately not an isolated instance . Many similar errors can be- easily quoted . 2 . That the Grand Ledge Calendar is iinnrr ,, t in giving 1755 as tlie dale 01 the original warrant of the existing Lodge No . 44 , and that these "dates" in the Calendar are wrong in dozens of instances . 3 . That / rn / j override " credulity , " the inseition in the minute book of 1803 ol the names of 74 subscribing brethren proving nothing . Can Bro . Heywood

Correspondence.

point to a single name amongst the petitioners to Grand Lodge on Sth February 1803 , that had been registered in connection with the previous lodge ? ' The extract from the lamented Bro . Brockbank's letter only proves the great need there is for careful transcribing . The lodgeof 1795 was not " renewed and revised , " but " renewed tuiA revived , " and , as these words are not synonymous the theory broached by Bro . Heywood that the warrant , as well as the proceedings ' of the lodge , had been " reviewed " by Grand Lodge is untenable .

In concluding this letter , I would ask , in all candour , if in the latter part of the nineteenth century we are to be seriously told that we must accept all past statements—contradictory or inaccurate as they may appear—because they happen to be ( So years old or upwards ? Is it not our imperative duty as Freemasons to search for the truth ? and is not truth—absolute and essential—one of the grand principles on which our Order is founded ? This has been the Guiding Star of all my Masonic study and research , and I still say Magna est Veritas , ct prwvalebit . Yours fraternally , JNO . LANE . Torquay , Oct . 21 st , 18 95 .

To the Editor of the " Freemason " Dear Sir and Brother , Though I am perfectly indifferent how you settle the dispute upp the contiguity of this lodge , yet , having formerly had many friends and acquaintances in it , ! naturally feel an interest in the discussion , and am inclined to range

my views upon the side of those who maintain its continuity since 1755 . According to your leader of to-day the warrant of No . _ g was cancelled ; but 4 th March 1795 , "an application from Brother John Watson and others , late of Lodge No . jp . Queens Head , Old Church St ., Manchester , was read , praying for a renewal and revival of the warrant , and it was moved and seconded , and unanimously agreed , that the prayer be granted . " So fa ' r , therefore , it is clear that this application did

not establish a new lodge ; it simply revived an old one , which had a continuous , though somewhat irregular , succession . Of course , the crucial point is the con . nection of the 1803 body with the 1795 ; that from 1795 to 1755 seems to be admitted . Possibly the lodge may be able to prove the connection between 1803 and 1795 by its minutes , and it would be of general interest to forward them to you . 1 can scarcely think the charter would have asserted this connection if it did riot actually exist , and , therefore , it ou '' ht to be primd facie proof ot the

position of those who contend for continuity from 1755 , and which it should require strong evidence ( which we have not had ) to set aside . —Fraternally yours , JO HN YARKER , P . M . 16 3 and 433 , Past Grand Warden of Greece . West Didsbury , Manchester , October 26 th .

A DISCLAIMER . To the Editor of the "Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , My attention has been called to a letter in the Freemasons' Chronicle of the 19 th October , bearing the nom dc plume under which I frequently write to your paper .

Will you permit me to say that I know nothing of that letter ; indeed , I have never written a line or even a word to the Chronicle in my life ; nor should I under any circumstances waste my time in writing about a matter which at thc best cannot concern a dozen people . —I am yours fraternally ,

MANCUNIUM . Freemasons' Club , Manchester , October 29 th .

"OUR BROTHER'S BED . " To the Editor of the " Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , In forwarding you the list of contributions to " Our Brother ' s Bed " in the Free Home for the Dying , I should like specially to notice the following communication received on the 28 th . instant from St . Helena :

"Prince ' s Lodge , St . Helena , Sept . 17 , 1895 . " Dear Sir and Brother , " Having seen your notice about . ' Our Brother's Bed' in the Freemason , I have pleasure in forwarding herewith cheque for £ 1 in support of it , and shall be obliged if you will send me full particulars concerning it . " * i * ours faithfully and fraternally ,

" Guv W . HOGG , W . M . 488 . " I have sent the particulars asked for , and shall be glad to give all information to any brother willing to help so good a cause . We only require a few more subscribers to provide the /" 18 still needed for 18 95 . Who will help the poor and penniless brother in the hour of death ' : —I a' " dear Sir and Brother , yours fraternally , W . PORTLOCK-DADSON , 1383 , Honorary Secretary . 281 , Strand , W . C , October 31 st .

Knights Templar.

knights Templar .

Mount Calvary Encampment ( D ) . A meeting of this old Kncampment was held at the Inns of Court Hotel , on the 11 In ult . Among those in attendance were Sir Knights H . J . Lardner , P . E . C , P . I '" - ' ¦> as E . C ; Nelson Prower , M . A ., P . E . C , P . E . P ., Prelate ; the Rev . R . C . Fillin * , 'l ' ' M . A ., 1 st Captain ; H . Hills , 2 nd Captain ; Basil Stewart , C . of Lines ; H . rwoa Bromhead , Herald ; Capt . T . C . Walls , P . G . C of G ., P . E . C , & c . Reg . ; I ' - 7 Driver , M . A ., P . E . C ., P . E . P . ; L . Steele , P . P . G . C . Hants , P . E . C , P . E . P . ; and C .

Slater , P . E . C , P . E . P . The minutes of the previous meeting wcre read and confirmed . The ballot having been taken for Comp . J . R . Carter , 2374 , he was installed as a Knight of the Ordel j ' " most impressive mariner by the acting E . C . Three other candidates were ballots 111 < but they were unable to be- present . Sir Knight the Rev . R . C . Fillingham , M . A- > " , elected E . G . ; Sir Kniuht Lieut .-Col . F . 1 . Stohwasser . P . G . S . B .. P . E . C . & c , [ ' »_ ¦ top

and Sir Knight J . R . Carter , Auditor . A Past Commander ' s jewel was voteel . Knight W . Maple , E . C . Apologies for non-attendance were received from Sir M * . W . Maple , Ueut .-Col . Stohwasser , G . Graveley , P . E . C ; li . Johnson , O . Berry , >' -S Roberts , and others . ,, The- encampment having been closed , an excellent banquet followed . The | - > " 'f Sir Knight Nelson Prower , as a chairman was facile princeps , his speeches being * - and interesting . . . J Sir Knights F . W . Driver and 11 . Hills entertained the meeting by their setw humorous recitations . \