Albæ Dies.

of the philanthropist . Work is plentiful , wages are hi gh , education is extending , better houses and sanitary reforms are improving the condition of our toiling masses , and there are to be seen , we believe , in Great Britain everywhere just now a growing sense of reverence for the law , as well

as increased regard for our own unrivalled institutions . All Englishmen have , then , hailed the birthday of the Prince of Wales , as alike a happy memory and a goodl y omen . At this moment all England may be said to be following carefully his footsteps on that far-off and

wondrous Indian land , and all unite in the fei vent aspiration that a good Providence will restore him in due time safe and sound to us all at home , and above all to those who ate nearest and dearest to him . And if that happy anniversary appeals to our national sympathies , the Lord

Mayor ' s Show speaks forcibly to our thoughts and feelings , as citizens under a great municipality . Some writers have often hastily and harshly arraigned the Corporation of the City of London as a creation of the past , and we believe that there are those who have a hazy idea

of essentiall y altering the present government of the City . Now , though we do not write politically , we yet may write as loyal citizens . The Corporation of the City of London is the oldest and the greatest of municipalities . It has come down to us from very old days , and very dark days , and it has ever been

J ^ mmmmmmm ^ mm ^^^^^^^ nsUc ^ remmknb ] tliarKeu uiT ^ TnTrrc ^^^ Crnr ™ C ^^^^^^^^^^^ M ^ HHMHi English in their origin and development , namely , a quiet discharge of a great trust reposed in it , a conscientious sense of its duty to its constituents . It has in other days led the way in metropolitan improvements , it has upheld the position

and rights of the citizens of London , it has dispensed a goodly hospitality , liberally and ornately . Any proposals which would interfere with its vitality or its integrity , which would weaken the principle of self-government , or take away the just and long-established right of the

Livery ought to be received with the greatest caution , as tending to undermine for the present , and , perhaps , injure for the future irretrievably , a very notable and striking system of municipal administration . The Corporation has been very lucky in recent occupiers of the Lord

Mayor ' s Civic Chair . We still can remember how well our distinguished Bro . Stone has filled his office , and played his part ; and we have the highest anticipations of Lord Mayor Cotton . A self-made man , he comes associated with the great prestige of industry , usefulness , honour , and success ; and , like those who hailed his

elevation on Tuesday , so to-day we beg , as denizens of the City , to offer to him our hearty good wishes , and to congratulate him on his well merited elevation . Though not a Freemason like our brother the late Lord Mayor , he yet , nevertheless , has of rig ht the best aspirations from our Order , which is ever loyal and patriotic , composed of good citizens , as well as true Freemasons .

Original Crrespondence.

Original Crrespondence .

[ We do not hold ourselves responsible for , or even as approving of 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 . —En . l

THE ROYAL MASONIC INSTITUTION FOR BOYS . To Ihe Editor of the Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — Wc much regret to have to trouhle you with a second letter for this week ' s issue , our last having been too late for insertion , in reply to Mr . Binckcs ' s communication in your paper of last Friday .

The Secretary admits the correctness of our calculation ; and we find from the reports for the last three years that the amount put down for " gratuities" ( ios . per boy ) during this period comes to £ 31 , viz .: £ 0 in 1872 , £ 4 ios . in 1873 , and £ 17 ios . in 1874 ; whereas , in his letter of last week , the Secrttaryaccounts for only £ 18 ios ., and this , too , incorrectly , as only 37 boys , according to

reports , left between January , 1872 , and December , 1874 , two , at least , of whom did not receive the " gratuity , " so that we have only 35 boys with the " gratuity , " or £ 17 ios . ; adding to this "the most unaccountable" ( as the Secretary terms it ) charge of £ 1 5 s . for silver medal , we have to subtract £ 18 15 s . from our correct total of

£ 314 5 s ., which gives £ 295 ios . to be accounted for , and not £ 2114 ios ., as shown in Mr . Binckcs ' s last letter . While the total of £ t ) , £ 4 ios ., and £$ is , as proved , wrong , each item , according to reports giving numbers of boys leaving from time to time , is also wrong . At the top of third column , p . 481 , in your last issue , we observe jumbled together " grants and gratuities ; " whilst

Original Crrespondence.

in the three reports before us " gratuities to boys on leaving institution " are put down as one item , separate and dis ° tinct from " grants and outfits for boys on leaving institution , " some three or four lines below the former item ; we do not understand the reason for this confusion of what hitherto had been treated as quite distinct . The " grants and outfits " for °

1872 were £ 110 , according to report and Secretary's letters , ¦ 87 . S „ 122 „ „ „ „ ' 874 ,, 5 ' is . „ „ „ „ but according to Mr . Binckcs ' s last letter were £ 62 ios ., whilst the item for " gratuities " only , according to 1874 report . was £ 17 10 s ., which the Secretary now says was n "' y £ 5 ilhere , then , we have a difference of / . ' 12 ics .

A little lower down on the same column of your paper we are besought to attciitl to the thereto annexed statement , with an " obviems inference " from incorrect data . Now , the very first item of this statement is wrong according to the reports for 18 72 and 1873 ( two editions of the latter ) , for in these three books Mow , George Augustus Frederick-, is credited with five guineas , and the total of page % of

1873 report , published in 1874 , is £ 50 5 s ., and not £ 50 , as the Secretary gives it . As regards four of the nine blunders pointed out by us , the Secretary styles them " clerical errors , " though perpetrated a second time in the . June edition of 18 73 report . We hardly think your readers will be disposed to regard so lightly errors involving a sum of £ 20 in so simple a matter as the account of appropriation of three or four hundred pounds , and we feel

we were not far wron g in warning the readers of our pamphlet against such blunders . Still lojver elown we have a reference to page 48 of 18 74 report ; we turn accordingly to the page and find , not £ 47 ios ., but £ 6 7 ios ., for " amount of grant not previously made or ascertained , " to which sum , we suppose , must be ailded the £ 3 for marine outfit from " Fund for the Advancement of Boys on leaving the Institution . " As an instance of proving an impossibility , Samuel Colling-¦ —ifai ^—J—i LL 1 'l-l . - o . ^ r „ Hr „ ,, „ , „ . /' . , „„„

wooers grant . . L urn mmrmmm ^ g ^ granted on Oth June , 1873 ; and , as we believe all such grants are made by the General Committee , who always meet on a Saturday , this committee , according lo Mr . Binckcs ' s date ( see Calendar ) , must in the month of June , 1873 , have sat on a Friday ; we find , moreover , that

Collingwood is credited with £ 3 in the 1872 report , so that if the grant was not foimally made till some day in June , 1873 , it must have been given to tho lad without the proper sanction . We observe the Secretary admits a discrepancy of £ 3 even accoreling to his own reckoning , in which we have pointed out , including errors in dates , twelve

inaccuracies . In 1874 report , understock Account , a balance , not shewn in 1873 report , is set down as due to the Secretary ; and Bro . Cox ' s Canonbiny medal is in one place , p . 41 of 18 74 report , put down at £ 4 , and in another , p . 53 , at four guineas ; in 1872 report , pp . 34 and 53 , Bros . Winn and Cox ' s prize money is put down at £ 17 18 s . Cd ., of which sum only £ 0 <) s . appears to have been awarded .

Wc could point out many other eliscrcpancics did we not feel that wc have already trespassed too much on the space available in your columns , and we deem it due to our correspondents to state that their valueel assistance has enabled us to detect several errors . We are , dear Sir and Brother , yours faithfully and fraternally , THOMAS WM . TEW .

Nov . 1 , 18 75 . O . G . D . PEBHOTT , M . A . [ We do not see why Bro . Binckes is termed Mr . Binckes It is most unmasonic , and very bad taste . —En . ]

A QUOTATION . To Ihe Editor if the Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — I duly read the " short reply " to my " voluminous epistle , " a reply nearly as long as my letter , and in which the writer appears to be particularly anxious to avoid everything relating to the subject .

I am favoured in the first instance with a little biography to the following effect : — " Lord Derby , when Lord Stanley , once said to the famous Lord Macaulay , then Mr . Macaulay , and both in the Mouse of Commons , ' The lion , gentleman is a great critic ; ' " so I think I may vcntuic to say to Bro . Bernard to-day , " Let me kindly remind your correspondent that he is again inaccurate . " The remark

really was , " The right lion , gentleman is a great verbal critic , " anil the occasion was on being interrupted in his speech hy Macaulay . The introduction of this little anecdote is therefore inapplicable . Perhaps , however , your correspondent , in the fertility of his imagination , may be as conversant with Parliamentary anecdotes as he is with " I Iudibras . " My authority for again correcting him is Jennings

and Johnstone ' s Parliamentary Anecdotes . With regard to the " foinencss " of my writing and the lucidity of my style , I may say he , of all men , should be silent relative to the first , and generous concerning the second , which is somewhat defective in the respect alluded to , 1 admit , hut principally so through the necessarily freeiuent introductions ol his own verbiage .

After being designated " one of those unfortunate persons you often meet with in the world who always will be ' convinced against' their ' will' ( although what he means by this I cannot say ) and ' so very great an authority , '" I am satirically referrcel to as " being so polite and Masonic as to give him the lie direct , " in stating that instead of emoting , he misquoted " Hudibras . " I say so now . Mc

says " 1 uscel the worels as an old Janetian ' saw , ' without any reference to Butler ' s version of it . " Me possibly might not know at the time he used the versiele that Butler had ever written anything of the kind , or , knowing so , might have supposed the one used by him to be the correct one . Mad he used it in the first instance 1 maintain it would still be a quotation , or rather a misquotation , from " Hudibras , " although unknown as such to the quoter .

Original Crrespondence.

I am also told that your correspondent is not likely to misquote " Hudibras , " and for the second time that he knows it belter than I do . What an absurd statement to make , as I said before . How is he enabled to make a comparison of this kind ? For what he may know to the contrary , I may be thoroughly conversant with the work , or never even have heard of it until the commencement of

this correspondence . Who your correspondent is I know not , but if he can prove to me b y any ordinary evidence that he possesses any familiarity with ihe poem I shall certainly be greatly surprised . Montaigne , in his Essay on Physiognomy , says , " Some quote Plato and Homer who never saw either of them , " and in this case your correspondent reminds me of those men who are constantly

vaunting their own knowledge and power to conceal their real weakness and incompetence . In his last letter he stated that "for a long time every one who cares about such things has known that there was an error in the actual quotation itself . " I asked what authority he had for this , but I have not been favoured with his reply . He makes assertions which he cannot

prove , and then , when called to account , acknowledges by silence his inability to reply . This week he says , " For the truth is , as another writer puts it clearl y ( referring possibly to the writer in your issue of the 16 th ult . ) , the saying is older than Hudibras . " Again 1 challenge him to give me a single authority for the truth of his assertion , and with Shakespeare

, say , " Let proof speak . " The writer then goes oil to say , " It often happens in an argument a man gives way , thou jh not convinced by argument ; but yielding the point ftr some reason ] or other , or , withdrawing from . the controversy , still retains his own

opinion . Precisely so , but it is cuite a different thing to convincing a man against his will In this case the man has not been convinced . He may be defeated in argument , worsted in all points , may even comply with the changed requirements of the case , but his conviction may ue ^ erjinve been touched . As I said before . I can fully

understand a man complying against hi ^ wnTjasTBuTIcT says , but cannot find an instance , notwithstanding your correspondent " venturing to believe , as he happens to know , " that a man may be so convinced . I now come to a terrible attack upon mc . He says , " Would it not be well before Bro . Bernard attempts to set everybody else right , that he should attend to his own

grammar and spelling . I have never yet seen ' odorous ' spelt with an ' e , ' nor do I ever remember such a sentence as , ' Why 1 I 0 he act differently . '" Now , this is really too bad . He might , when he saw my letter at your office , as he states , have handed it in as " copy " in the usual way , and left the result to one of your careful compositors , or the detecting eye of the " reader . " But no , the opportunity

was not to be lost . It enabled him to add about a " stick " to his effusion on the point of grammar and spelling , and to request me not to forget " that nothing is so absurd as that childish and carping hyper criticism which is generally the refuge of the incompetent and intolerant . " So much for example . For some years 1 have been a contributor to several of

the London and provincial papers , and have on more than one occasion contributed to the " Freemason " elsewhere than in the correspondence columns or as the reporter of the lodge meetings , and therefore to this little thrust I attach no importance . He next states it is useless going through my letter . I believe if he could have gone through it more to his own

satisfaction he would not have said this . He continues with the information that " he has more important work to attend to than to read , except often very cursorily , the tedious platitude or the meaningless objection . " 1 own myself inclined to believe that he must have read very

little indeed , judging by the use he makes of it . The advice with which he concludes his letter is unfortunately unheeded , as the source from which it emanates renders its acceptance impossible . 1 remain , dear Sir and brother , yours fraternally , WILLIAM BKRNAHU . Mull , Nov . 5 , 1875 .

BRO . BERNARD'S LAST . To the Editor if the Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — I am , I confess , deeply affected and edified , as must be all your readers , by the last characteristic effusion of your distinguished correspondent . Bro . Bernard seems to have kept this last wonderful

production of his in some warm receptacle , where it has acquired that pungency of style , that gentlemanliness of feeling , and that true Masonic spirit , that fraternal courtesy , by which it is so unmistakeably characterized from first to last . It might , indeed , be a ejuestion for your discretion and that of the Editor whether amid a pressure of much more important matters you can find room for such

trumpery and uninteresting letters , but I deal only with matters of fact , and as the letter appears " vcila" my commentary . I . It is a great mistake for people to rely on secondhand information and to put up as facts what they have found in a Book of Anecdotes . I almost wonder , while Bro . Bernard was about it , he did not go to Joe Miller . It does so happen that I was present myself , and

heard the late Lord Derby ( Lord Stanley he was then ) use the very words I have quoted . He did not say a " verbal " ciitic . He said , the honourable gentleman , or right honourable gentleman , " is a great critic . " Those who heard the retort , the tone of the speaker , and the ringing cheers of his supporters , will nevtr forget the episode and the scene .

II . Let us go back to the actual controversy . I originally stated , " nine ilke lachrymw , " that according to the old " saying , " " a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still . " I did not say , " as the poet has it , " but purposely used the words as an " old saying , " because I believe , as all students of Uutler know , that his amusing