Ad00802

$ffpliiasamt|iTstxtuttaitfar(Bxxh, ST . JOHN'S HILL , BATTERSEA RISE , S . W . Chief Patroness : HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN . Grand Patron and President : His ROYAL HIGHNESS THE PRINCE or WALES , K . G ., M . W . G . M . Grand Patroness : HER EOYAL HIGHNESS THE PRINCESS OP WALES . POUNDED 178 8 , CENTENARY CELEBRATION 1888 . Brethren willing to act as Stewards on the above important occasion will greatly oblige by sending in their names as early as convenient . F . It . W . HEDGES , Secretary . OrriCE—5 Freemasons' Hall , Great Queen Street , W . O .

Ad00803

VictoriaMansionsRestaurant, VICTORIA STREET , WESTMINSTER , S . W . A . SUITE OF ROOMS , MOST CONVENIENTLY ARRANGED FOR MASONIC MEETINGS . EIGHT LODGES ALREADY MEET HERE ; AMPLE ACCOMMODATION FOR OTHERS . Separate Entrance—apart from the Restaurant—from Victoria Street . The Lodge Room , Ante Room , & c , on one Floor , Quite Private . THE BANQUET ROOM WILL SEAT UPWARDS OF 100 GUESTS . CHOICE STOCK OF WINES , SPIRITS , do . Wedding : Breakfasts , Soirees , Concerts , Parties , Grlee Oliibs , * fec _ , -fee , accommodated . Particulars on Application to H . CLOOTS , Proprietor , Victoria Mansions Restaurant , Victoria St ., Westminster , S . W

Ar00804

tg-r __ r _ rtvw . ^^ S^^K^^a J * ri ? wyTOvwv « __ Kg ^

" Masonic Records " And Brother Jacob Norton Once More

" MASONIC RECORDS " AND BROTHER JACOB NORTON ONCE MORE

Bv BRO . JOHN LAXE . TJUtOM the concluding portion of Bro . Norton ' s " Few JL more words to Brother Lane" in the CIIKOXICLB of 13 th August , I felt assured that ho had done with me

altogether , but in the i . sue for the 20 th August he returns to " slay the slain , " evidently under tho impression that in whafche designates his " Recent Tussle with Bro . Lane " he had not achieved the victorv he desired .

The methods Bro . Norton lias adopted in this controversy render it necessary for me to use some rather plain words , in order to convince him that he should not indulge so largely in misrepresentation , bnt confine himself to facts .

It is quite possible my book is far from being perfect ; I never expected it to be ; bufc the statements I make in it are based on reliable data , and I endeavoured to brino * to

the discharge of my task , not only honest intentions but nil the care and discrimination I could command in my desir .. ' to record nofc . ii . i _ r but tho truth .

First of all , let me assure Bro . Norton that he is quite wrong when he assumes that " a 3 far as tho Philadel p hia , question is concerned there is no issue between" us . I have not thrown overboard what he was pleased to designate

my original theory ; but , on the contrary , in rny very last article , I reiterated aud confirmed my opinions , which are fully set oub in the CHRONICLE of 10 th February last , and am quite content to leave the issue ( as to the fairest and

most reasonable interpretation of the ascertained facts ) to the unprejudiced and impartial judgment of the Fraternity . The question of the Origin of Freemasonry in America , whether in Philadelphia or in Boston , was not / within the scope of " Masonic Records , " and I decline to discuss the

" Masonic Records " And Brother Jacob Norton Once More

matter beyond that which ia shewn by my reference to No . 79 . The subject of the Precedency of American Grand Lodges or American Masonry does not affect the accuracy of my work , and I have no anxiety to take tin the battle in

reference to that matter . Bros . Hughan , Gould , Woodford , MacCalla , and others are in the field , and they are quite strong enough to discuss that subject . My purpose , however , must be to endeavour to convince Bro . Norton of

the possibility ( at any rate ) that notwithstanding Boston is said to be the " hub of the universe " all wisdom and knowledge are not concentrated at , and do not emanate from , that renowned city , and that at least some credit for

critical research and honest labour , together with an earnest endeavour to ascertain what is true and reliable , may fairl y be conceded to students of Masonic History on this side of the water also .

Bro . Norton has challenged the accuracy of my statements in reference to the Lodge at Wolverhampton , aa having been one of the entire new Lodges to which was

granted the number of a Lodge that had ceased to exist . To put the matter plainly before the readers of the CHRONICLE in general , and Bro . Norton in particular , must be my present task .

Let me cite the Grand Lodge regulations at the outset , — and in doing so T would inform Bro . Norton that I was previously well acquainted with the alteration of the Law as recorded in the Constitutions of 1767 .

In 1727 the Grand Lodge ordered that it should be referred to the Grand Master and Grand Wardens to

inquire into the precedency of the Lodges , and to report thereon to the next Quarterly Communication , in order that tbe List of Lodges might be finally settled .

Tn 1729 it was enacted that every new Lodge for the future should pay two guineas for their Constitution , to the General Charity .

On 24 th February 1734-5 it was Resolved " That if any Lodge for the future within the Bills of Mortality shall not regularly meet for the space of one year such Lodge shall

be erased out of the Book of Lodges , and in case they shall afterwards be desirous of meeting again as a Lodge they shall loose ( sic ) their former Rank and submitt themselves to a new Constitution . " The same regulation is _ ilso

in the Book of Constitutions of 1738 , but with some alteration of verbiage , viz . : " If any Lodge within the Bills of Mortalit y shall cease to meet regularly during 12 months successive its name and place shall be erased or blotted out of the Grand Lod _ re Book and Engraven List

And if they petition to be again inserted and own'd as a regular Lodge it must lose its former p lace and Rank of Precedency and submit to a New Constitution . " During the same year 1735 , that Resolution was made

to include not only the London Lodges , or Lodges within the Bills of Mortality , but all other Lodges in England which should neither meet , nor send in their Charity , nor attend Quarterly Communication within the space of ono

year . Then the Constitutions of 1767 ( Art . V . page 347 ) tell ns that instead of Lodges losing precedency it had been enacted that " if they petition to be again inserted

and owned as a regular Lodge , [ they ] shall on paying two guineas for Constitution , and two guineas to the Public Charity , be admitted into their former place and Rank of Precedency . "

I quote these afc length to avoid any misapprehension , and now proceed to Bro . Norton ' s indictment iu relation to the Wolverhampton Lodge . In the Preface to " Masonic Records" ( page xviii ) , I say that " an entirely new

Lodgo at Wolverhampton paid the usual £ 2 2 s in 1768 for its warrant , tho number of which should have been 433 , bnt influences operated to procure for it the number 77 ,

which hud then recently been vacated by a Gateshead Lodgo ( No . 143 of 8 th March 1735-6 ) whereby this Nev . Lodge , not warranted until 5 th Nov . 1768 , was thenceforward designated as of the date 8 fch March 1735 . " Bro .

Norton says , No ! Bro . Lane is puzzled ! Bro . Lane is ignorant of the law of 1767 . ' The Grand Lodge conld not possibly do such an act ! & c , & c , and then he coolly affirms , without the shadow of evidence or proof of any

kind , that not only am I wrong in my statement but that T havo " nowhere proved that an old number of an extinct Lodge was ever conferred upon an entire new body of

Masons , either before the 1735 law was enacted , or during the continuance [ of that law ] or even after the said law was modified in the 1767 Constitutions , " and , as if ignoring the possibility of proving my statement , Bro . Norton treats