Bitter Masonic War.

present difficulty exists , or until such member shall revoke his declaration of allegiance to the Grand Lodge . " A great deal of talk has been made by the friends of Hiram Lodge , especially in regard to the possibility of Hiram Lodge forming a new Grand Lodge . But there seems to be little chance of this being done ,

58 other jurisdictions have already voted to sustain the Grand Lodge . The New York Grand Lodge at its last Quarterly Communication passed a vote sustaining the Grand Lodge of Connecticut in its action . The Grand Master of New York took very strong ground in his annual address in regard to the matter , claiming that the aotion of Hiram

Lodge would be destructive of all discipline , if upheld . Massachusetts has also taken action , and at the last Quarterly Communication the following resolution was passed , after a full presentation of the case . "Thatall Masonio intercourse be and is hereby forbidden between

the Lodges of this jurisdiction of Massachussets , or the members thereof , and Hiram Lodge , No . 1 of New Haven , Ct ., formerly under the jurisdiction of the Most Worshipful Grand Lodge of that state , the oharter of whioh was revoked by that Grand Lodge at a Special Communication held on the 20 th day of April last . It is further

ordered that no Masonio intercourse be held between the brethren of this jurisdiction of Massachusetts and any person olaiming affiliation with said Hiram Lodge , and that no visitor claiming by , through , or under that former Lodge , be admitted to any Lodge in this jurisdiction of Massachusetts , unless he first produce a certificate from

the Grand Lodge of Connecticut that he has renewed his allegianoe to that Grand Lodge , and promised obedience thereto . " The members of Hiram Lodge have been refused admission into the Commandery in New Haven , and in many ways the edict of non-intercourse has already been felt . It is universally held in this

country that " when three or more Lodges that have been formed in any unoccupied territory , even if chartered by different Grand Lodges , decide to sever their connection with their parent Grand Lodge and form a Grand Lodge of their own , that such Grand Lodge has then exclusive jurisdiction of all the Lodges in such territory , and all

other Grand Lodges are precluded from exercising any Masonic authority within the said territory . " This view is also held by the Grand Lodge of England . A similar case is cited of three Lodges in the Province of Quebec , who refnse to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodgo of that Province , but claim

to work under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of England . Most of the Grand Lodges in the United States have declared non-intercourse with the three offending Lodges until they acknowledge the authority of the Grand Lodge of Quebec . It will be seen , therefore , that Hiram Lodge is resting npon a very slim chance of being

recognised by the Grand Lodges of other States while under the ban of its own Grand Lodge . The latest move in the matter is the announcement that two members of Hiram Lodge and two of those recently expelled by Grand Lodge have secured a lease of the present Masonio Temple in New Haven , and that consequently the three

other Lodges in tho city , with the Chapter , Council , Commandery and Scottish Rite bodies , are to seek other qnarters , being unwilling to remain as tenants of Hiram Lodge . Another point of intorest is as to the standing of the expelled members of Hiram Lodge in the Masonio Relief Association . Acting upon legal advice , the President of that

Association has decided that the members , being still in good standing in their blue Lodge , are still in gdOd standing in the Relief Association , the vote of expulsion of the Grand Lodge having no effect upon

their standing there under its Bye-laws . The dispute has attracted wide attention in Connecticut ou account of the age and importance of the Lodge , and also on account of tho standing , politically and socially , of the expelled members . —Boston Herald .

The "Old People's " Summer Entertainment.

THE "OLD PEOPLE'S " SUMMER ENTERTAINMENT .

A NUMEROUS company of brethren and ladies visited the Royal - £ X Masonic Benevolent Institution at Croydon , on Thursday , the 28 th ult ., when the Annual Summer Entertainment was given to the inmates of tho Home . Special saloon carriaores wei-a tirovirlorl Kv

the South Eastern Company , at Cannon-strcet , and as the day was brilliantly fine , the journey , though brief , was most enjoyable . The " Old Folks , " looking the very picture of happinncss and contentment , were on the tip-too of expectation , and on the arrival of the visitors there were the usnal interchanges of thanks on behalf of

the inmates , and of kindly inquiries on the part of the guests , who had been invited to participate in the affair by Bro . James Terry , the iudefatigable and much loved Secretary of the Institution . ' After paying their customary " rounds of visits" to tho snug and cosy apartments of tho old people , the visitors nartonk of

toa , their comforts and enjoyment being admirably ministered to by MissNorris , the matron . Then more visits were paid to the annuitants , to whom were given packets of tea and tobacco , presented by the Supreme Council and other friends . The festivities wound up with an excellent entert / . ninmnnf r > rm > ; rin / i ™ ..

„ by Brother John A . Farnfield , given by members of the Savage Club , under Bro . Geoffrey Thorn , interspersed with music , smginsr , and recitations by many of the visitors . Amongst those who contributed to tho pleasures of the evening were Mr . A . M . Barnard Miss Newton , Bro . J . J . Berrv . Miss J . Terrv . Mr . . Tampa Tin in '

Mr . Odell , Mr . Lovett King , Mr . P . Wilder , aud Mr . J . Wilder . Tho entertainment passed off most successfully , light refreshments being dispensed during the intervals . At its close cordial thanks were tendered to the Chairman , to Bro . Terry , the "founder of the , fnn . f "

and those who had assisted him ; soon after which the Visitors returned to the station for home , after having wished hearty " Goodbyes to tho Old People , who expressed in no measured terms ° their appreciation of tho treat that had bceu afforded them .

Correspondence.

CORRESPONDENCE .

We do not hold ourselves responsible for the opinions of our Cor . respondents . All Letters must hear the name and address of the Writer not necessarily for publication , but as a guarantee of good faith . We cannot undertake to return rejected communications .

PHILADELPHIAN CLAIMS . To the Editor of the FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —The amnsing and characteristic letter of Bro . Jacob Norton , in yonr last issue , calls for a few remarks from myself , who had the great temerity to express any opinion whatever on a question which has some interest for Masonio students , of whom

I have long been one , even before Bro . Norton took up the pen to improve and enlighten us all round . I confess that in my first letter I was not so preoiae as I might have been , but in my letter in the FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE of 16 th July , I ventured to point out what seemed to me to be the only alternatives

now to which we are historically and critically reduced . Either , I said , Letter B ia correct , and that in 1731 an election took place outside Coxe ' s Patent , and whioh was partially oovered by what Franklin in 1731 terms the " privileges " of" annual eleotion , " or the Gazette was correct , and an eleotion took place in 1732 , which

might either have been inside or outside Coxe's Patent of 1730 . Bro . Norton says that Bro . Gould and I are " wide apart" as to the " issue " involved . But are we ? Bro . Gould and myself quite agree that Coxe ' s Patent was issued ,

but that there is " no evidence " of his " exercise of its powers up to date . Does Bro . Norton agree as to the original issue of Coxe's Patent at all ? I shonld like a distinct answer to this .

I follow Bro . Norton in his averment of doubt as to a knowledge in 1732 of a Patent issued in 1730 , but I equally agree with Brother Gould that the Constitution Book of 1738 must have been known in America in due oonrse , and there never has been any repudiation of

these two statements that Coxe received a Patent from the Duke of Norfolk in 1730 , and that in 1731 at a meeting of GraDd Lodge he returned thanks as the Provincial Grand Master appointed under that Patent .

Of course , if the Philadelphian Freemasons , the only brethren of the three Provinces availing themselves of these privileges under the original Patent , elected in 1732 , after the expiration of Coxe's Patent a Provincial Grand Master for the first time , the inference naturally is , that they knew of , and acted under Coxe's Patent ,

whatever reason Coxe had for ignoriug his own powers , if he did so ignore them . But if , on the contrary , they elected , as Liber B says , a Prov . Grand Master or Grand Master in 1731 , then they did so outside Coxe's Patent , and it is qnite clear they either acted in complete

ignorance of it , or as completely passed it by . When I said I did not set much store on the entry of 1731 , taken by itself , I said so , because in my researches in Parochial Registers and the like , I know how often entries are posted up after date , and hence how many the errata and anachronisms which occur . It is , of course , evidence

quantum valet , and has to be taken into account , as it will be seen , unless further evidence turns up . I quite lean to Bro . McCulla ' s view of the present etate of the question , as contained in the Keystone , 11 th June , as it seems torn-, since Bro . Gould's very able summing up of the question , we are perforce compelled to go further bnok

altogether . If the meeting took place in 1731 , then assuming Franklin ' s words do not in any sense in 1734 refer to Coxe ' s Patent , and the point involved in " any other year , " and that he was still in ignorance of

it ; then , as a natural consequence , he refers to previous entries and previous " privileges of annual election . " Whence did they come ? To this point I will devote myself in another letter .

One more remark . Bro . Norton fails apparently to see that the gist of Franklin ' s letter to Price was his universal American powers , as opposed to limited ones , and I venture to think , pace Bro . Norton , that if Franklin did know anything of Coxe ' s Limited Patent , he would very reasonably indeed write- to Price , whose powers were seemingly unlimited . Yours fraternally , A STUDENT or BHO . GOULD ' S HISTORT .

To the Editor ofthe FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —Your paper , containing a letter with the above heading , by " A Student of Bro . Gould ' s History , " of 2 nd July , reached me on the evening of 12 th July . On the next day I had to leave for Now York , and in hurry I omitted something which I

shall now supply . My uuknown opponeut said : — " The passage in the Pennsylvania Gazette of the 26 th of June 1732 seems to show that the [ Philadelphia ] brethren knew of the Patent [ of Daniel Coxe ] and acted under it . "

I , however , merely denied that there was anything in the Pennsylvania Gazette to indicate that the said brethren either knew anything about Coxe ' s Patent or that they acted under it . Now , here is the paragraph from the Pennsylvania Gazette above referred

toviz : —¦ " Saturday last being St . John's Day , a Grand Lodge of the Ancient and Honourable Society of Free and Accepted Masons was held at the Sun Tavern , in Water Street , when , after a handsome entertainment , the Worshipful W . Allen , Esq ., was unanimously chosen Grand Master of this Province for the year ensuing : who was pleased to