Correspondence.

Correspondence .

We do not hold ourselves responsible tor the opinions expressed by our correspondents but we wish , in a spirit of fair play to all , to permit—within certain necessary limitsfree discussion .

MASONIC JURISPRUDENCE . To the Editor of the " Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , I notice in your last week ' s article on "The Warrant , " you say " The earliest authentic warrant to an English lodge is that issued in 1754 to a lodge now defunct . . . . It is now in the possession of the Lodge of Unanimity ,

Duckinfield , No . 89 . " In connection with the History of Freemasonry in Cheshire , which has just been compiled , the W . M . of No . 89 allowed me to go through minute books of that lodge , now the senior lodge in the Province of Cheshire . They are , I am pleased to say , complete from the constitution of the lodge in Liverpool in 1754 until to-d ' iy . They prove beyond a doubt that the lodge was constituted by the " Moderns , " remained under the " Moderns " until

1812 , and . entered the Union as a " Modern " lodge . The warrant under which they work to-day is the original warrant granted in 1 754 by William Ratchdale , Prov Grand Master of Lancashire . The lodge was removed from Manchester to Duckinfield in 1807 ; the minute noting the removal is as follows : " April 1—1807 : This Lodge Unanimity , No . 111 ( Moderns ) , removed unanimously from the sign of the Buck and Hay Thorn , Back Square , Manchester , in the County of

Lancaster , to Mr . John Bradley ' s , the " Old General , " in Duckinfield , in the County of Chester ; the following brethren present to open the Lodge in the first , second & third Degrees in Masonry at J past one o ' clock : " David Torr—Integrity , No . 212 W . M . John Chew—L ' nion , No . 443 S . W . John Shaw -Union , No . 443 J . W .

John Crabtree—Minerva , No . 536 S . D . John Redmain J . D . Henry Mills P . M . Saml . Wood Secy . " At 2 o ' clock Regular ofiicers for the next six months were elected , when the

following brethren took their seats : " F . D . Astley W . M . Martin Dooley S . W . Thos . Plattbut J . W . John Shaw acted . "

Bros . Redmain , Mills , and Wood were old members of the lodge , the others were all members of "Modern" lodges . Francis Duckinfield Astley , the first Master after its removal from Lanes to Cheshire , was Lord of the Manor of Duckinfield , and the same year , 1807 , had succeeded the celebrated John Allen as P . G . M . of Lanes ; he was the last P . G . M . of Lancashire before its division into two provinces . He was many times Master of " Unanimity" between 1807 and

1820 ; the splendid chairs and other furniture in the possession of the lodge were his gifts . The lodge had a brilliant career in Manchester , and its removal would seem to be due to mine host of the " Old General" in Duckinfield being a member at , and before , its removal , and also to meet the convenience of R . W . Bro . Astley . In Lane ' s Masonic Records , under the date 1792 , it is marked No . 111 A . ( Antients ) , but there is no evidence in its minutes or in change of

jurisdiction , and if it was working under any other than its present warrant , especially one from the "Antients , " it is incomprehensible that in 1807 the P . G . M . ( Moderns ) of Lancashire , assisted by brethren all owing allegiance to the Moderns , should be the only individuals taking part in its ceremonies , and both before and after 1807 visitors invariably hailed from modern lodges . —Yours fraternally , J . ARMSTRONG , P . P . G . W . Chester . 14 , Water-street , Liverpool , 26 th March .

THE ELECTION OF GRAND TREASURER . To the Editor of the " Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , Your correspondents have done excellent service in their criticism of the very unsatisfactory and unfair methods which prevail in the election of Giand Treasurer .

It would , however , be well if more were done in exposing the unseemly sights which met the eye within and without Freemasons' Hall on the day of the recent election . To all of us it can scarcely be considered other than a disgrace to the English Craft , that once a year we pretty well descend to the level of ihe parochial strife satirised by Dickens in his sketch " The Election for Beadle . " And the worst of it is the fact that we are getting ourselves talked about amongst the " uninstructed world . "

That the time has arrived for practical and pronounced action , surely no reasonable man will deny , save the obtuse individuals who , at all cost , oppose the sweeping away of old-fashioned abuses and anomalies . Legislation , it is clear , is the only way to bring this desirable and

muchneeded change about , and , if the actual rulers in the Craft—in other words , the ex-officio and nominated members of the Board of General Purposes—decline to make a move , then it is devoutly to be hoped that some leading brother or brethren in the provinces—for the provinces are the sufferers under the present iniquitous and inequitable system—will be found to enter the lists .

1 have hinted at legislation as the only cure , and a very simple cure it must appear to any practical man of business . For myself , I have for ysars past had an alteration of the Book of Constitutions in my mind as likely to meet the case . Briefly speaking , it is to change the date of nomination of Grand Treasurer to tho September Communicationso

, as to enable voting papers to be sent out to the Masters of lodges , numerically on the basis of the last returns received by the Grand Secretary . A constitutional date could be enacted for the reception of the signed voting papers—say a fortnight prior to the March Communication , when the result of a contested election would be formally declared .

I have mainly suggested September as the time of nomination because it would give qualified members ot lodges in the Colonies , in India , and in foreign parts generally , a privilege and a right which , so far as I a * n aware , they have practically never possessed . In this connection I trust there will be some expression of opinion from our brethren abroad .

The foregoing suggestions are presented for what they are worth , and might , I entertain no doubt , be much improved upon ; but whatever the upshot of this controversy , I hope it will be in the direction of eradicating from English Freemasonry a stigma that , encouraged by our lais-sca fa ire system , has become accentuated in volume during recent years . —Yours fraternally , W . F . LAMONBY . March 23 rd .

Correspondence.

THE LODGE WARRANT . To the Editor of the " Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother . In common with all your readers , I am greatly indebted to you for having introduced to our notice the valuable and instructive essay on Masonic Jurisprudence that have formed so attractive a feature in your columns .

His last essay on warrants is extremely interesting , and conveys much information about its early use . But the writer seems to be unaware that the whole subject of lodge warrants has been searchingly investigated by the Lodge Quatuor Coronati , No . 2076 , who entrusted the subject to that eminent jurist and historian Professor Chetwode Crawley , LL . D .

My object in this letter is to call the attention of your learned contributor to Professor C . Crawley ' s researches , as many of the results are quite outside ordinary views . I candidly admit I had always thought the use of warrants or charters was essentially an institution of the Grand Lodge of England . But Dr . Crawley seems to have proved otherwise ; the use of charters in lodges having been first introduced in the Irish Grand Lodge , and then adopted in America years before our Grand Lodge adopted it . And the same seems to have been

true of Master Masons' certificates . The proofs and documents are given at large in Prof . Crawley's Ccementaria Hibcrnica , Fasculus L , and again in Appendix to Fasculus IL , both published by the Lodge Quatuor Coronati . The enquiries I have made , and the reviews 1 have seen , show that these results have been accepted by our three great Masonic writers , Bros . Gould , Hughan , and Sadler , as well as by Lodge Quatuor Coronati , but it would be most desirable to have your correspondent's able views on Prof . Chetwode Crawley ' s learned theories . —Yours fraternally ,

C . CARNEGIE , P . M ., P . P-G . O . Hants . Southampton , 23 rd March .

THE THREE ENGLISH LODGES IN MONTREAL . Tothe Editor ot the " Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , My attention has been drawn to your admirable editorial in your issue of the i ( 5 th ultimo respecting the position of the lodges in Montreal under the Grand Lodge of England , and the desirability of legislation to promote an amalgamation with the Grand Lodge of Quebec , and xvhile I agree with your

criticisms in the main , you will pardon me if I state that we have not been puzzled by the language of Clause 21813 , as there is nothing of an ambiguous nature in its construction , and we fully appreciate under what circumstances the Grand Registrar decides that Clause 218 B cannot be utilised by the brethren in Montreal under existing conditions , but it is the application of this clause under different conditious that is somewhat puzzling , and for this reason :

Is it not a fact that the Grand Lodge of Quebec has never been fully recognised by the Grand Lodgeof England , the former Grand Lodge having refused recognition at the hands of the latter Grand Lodge in 18 75 , owing to their having imposed certain conditions which the Grand Lodge of Quebec refused to entertain ? Your editorial referred to bears out this contention , and that being the position of affairs , it can readily be seen . 2 I 8 B could not apply ; but here comes the crux of the whole question , and which was the solution looked to by some of the brethren here .

Seeing that the o bjections of the Grand Lodge of Quebec have lost considerable force during the past 25 years , it might reasonably be argued that , if full recognition were offered them at this date , and they decided to accept it with the conditions imposed , for the sake of harmony and to help forward the settlement of this long-standing dispute , would not the Giand Lodge of Quebec then come within the purview of clause 218 B as being a fully recognised Grand Lodge in the ordinary acceptation of the term , that is , being received and recognised by the Grand Lodge of England exactly as other grand bodies are ?

It is the semi-official recognition of the Grand Lodge of Quebec by the Grand Lodge of England that has made the question to a great extent puzzling , and it is the want of knowledge as to how the Grand Lodge of England looks upon this question of recognition . If it ( the Grand Lodge of England ) says , " We already recognise to the fullest extent , Masonically , the Grand Lodge of

Quebec , and no further acton our part will change or improve its status , then new legislation will undoubtedly be required ; if , on the other hand , by a further act of recognition , it places the Grand Lodge of Quebec on the same plane as other Grand bodies , could not the brethren here take advantage of 21813 within six months alter full recognition had been accorded ?

If the Grand Lodge of England or its advisers decide that such a view is untenable , and that the brethren of the three English lodges would still be ineligible to avail themselves of Clause 2180 , nothing would then remain but to introduce new legislation along the lines of your editorial ; but I think , personally , the matter would be solved by the consummation of the full act of recognition and the application of this clause , and the brethren would then be compelled to comply with its provisions .

There certainly is no . machinery provided for bringing about this result anywhere between the covers of the Book of Constitutions , and I am strongly of opinion that such means should be provided , whether any lodges wished to avail themselves of it or not . It would be legislation of practical value , and would enable a large majority of any lodge to make effective their desires , and not compel them to resort to that most unsatisfactory method of demitting and leaving behind an insignificant and factious minority , which usuilly wjrtu more

harm to our Order , by keeping open old sores , than any other cause I know of . It is quite true that the rights of minorities should be protected , but it is equally true that thc majority should govern , especially such an overwhelming majority as Clause 2 iSu prescribes , but no such minorities as set forth in Article 219 should have the great power they now possess to thwart the will of , say , ninetenths of the brethren of any lodge in which a difference of opinion on such a point as that now under review exists . —Yours fraternally , W . W . WILLIAMSON ,

P . M . 640 . 238 , Mance-street , Montreal , March 11 .

PRINCE CHRISTIAN VICTOR MEMORIAL . To the Editor of the "Freemason . " Dear Sir , Will you allow us to appeal for assistance in carrying out the following project which was organised towards the close . of last year , ;

The sympathy evinced by our lamented and revered Queen Victoria in a '' the personal sorrows of her people arising from the South African War , had awakened a warm and grateful response in the hearts of the public , and it was then resolved to give expression to this all-pervading sentiment , and in some measure respectfully to reciprocate the sympathy which had been shown by establishing a permanent memorial of the grandson of the Queen , Prince