Bro. Lane And No. 79, Once More.

topic . While , therefore , I thank Bro . Lane for correcting my errors about side issues , yet I cannot help thinking that from the great importance he attached to my errors , and the air of superiority he put on , when

admonishing my shortcomings , on his part he is not infallible . By this , however , I do not mean to depreciate his book . On the contrary , I mean to recommend its excellency wherever I can . Iudeed , I believe that tho Grand

Lodge might worthily bestow £ 1000 on Bro . Lane for the service he has rendered to Masonic studeuts by compiling so grand a work . But I claim the right to point out an

error , which is calculated to confirm my good , innocent Pennsylvanian brethren in their delusion that Philadelphia had an Ensrlish Charter either in 1731 or 1735 . And I

must add that if Bro . Lano was universally regarded as a very Moses in Masonry , I would not hesitate to fight him single-handed on the No . 79 question . The next question is : Was No . 79 re-created from new

materials in 1735 , as Bro . Lane maintains ? Or was the old Hig hgate Lodge of 1731 merely restored to its original rank in 1735 ? In order to show that dormant Lodges were restored by the Grand Lodge before 1735 , I pointed

out that Nos . 42 and 67 were vacant in the Lodge List of 1731-32 . But in Rawlinson ' s Lodge List of 1733 the vacancies of both Lodges were filled up . And I further pointed out that no law existed in the forenoon of

24 th February 1735 to debar the Grand Lodge in the afternoon of the same day from restoring No . 79 to its old rank . To the above argument Bro . Lane triumphantly replies thus : —

" The two blanks [ of 42 and 67 ] on the 1731-2 List do not help Bro . Norton ' s case at all , but are strong evidence in corroboration of the inference I drew that there was

a Lodge ( I do not say where it was located ) having No . 70 previous to that which subsequently appeared at the Castle in Highgate . " Bro . Lane , while still believing in a previous existing

No . 79 has seemingly lost faith now that a No . 79 was in Philadelphia , aud I venture to add that if his mind had not been addled by the Dublin blunderer of 1735 .

Bro . Lane would never have suspected of thereover having been more than one No . 79 in 1731 , 1734 , or at any other time

" The Grand Lodge records ( continues Bro . Lane ) con tain all the evidence I know of that will assist in tin

settlement of the question . No . 42 , warranted 25 th May 1725 , at 'King Henry 8 th ' s Head , St . Andrew-street , near ye Seven Dials , ' appears only in the Grand Lodge minutes for three meetings—in June , November and

December 1728 . After that period it never attended , and it is out of the Lists in 1731-1733 , A Lodge , however , appears on the 13 th December 1733 at the Salutation ,

Billingsgate , which bore the same No . 42 , no less than five years after the period when the ori ginal Lodge ceased to be represented . "

Now , I ask Bro . Lane , what reason he has for supposing that the Lodge of 1725 , after a suspension of five years , was not restored in 1733 ? Surel y no law existed in 1733 to prevent the Grand Lodge from restoring the said Lodge ,

even after a suspension of five years ; and if the Grand Lodge restored a Lodge that was dormant five years in 1733 , why could it not restoro No . 79 in 1735 after being asleep about two or three years ?

Bro . Lane evidently perceived that his reasoning about No . 42 was not quite conclusive , so his more decisive battery he discharged against No . 67 . He says , " No . 67 , again , is still more conclusive . Warranted on the

16 th of April 1730 , at Dick ' s Coffee House , Gravel-street , Hatton Garden : it attended Grand Lodge for the last time on the 28 th of August in the same year . Then it ceased , its existence having been of very short duration , and was

removed trom the Lists . Late , however , in 1738 ( I give this on the authority of Anderson , its first attendance at Grand Lodge being 31 st January 1739 ) , a Lodge appears at the Castle , at St . Giles , with the same number 67 . an

interval of eight years having elapsed since the attendance of the original Lodge . On Bro . Norton ' s own showing the old Lodge must have been erased by virtue of the Grand Lodge law of February 1735 . "

The statement above quoted , viz , that No . 67 had no existence for eight years ; that is , from 1730 to 1738 , naturally astonished me . I , therefore , not only re-examined

Rawlinson ' s Lodge List of 1733 , but followed it up with Pine ' s , as well as Smith ' s Lists of 1734 , also Bro . Lane ' s infallible List , reprinted in Dublin in 1735 , Picaro ' s

Bro. Lane And No. 79, Once More.

engraved List of 1735 , and the 1736 List in the " Four Old Lodges , " and in every one of the said Lists 1 found No . 67 was located at the " Castle , in St . Giles ' . " And next I consulted Bro . Laue ' s own hook , and on page 26 I found , the followinir : —

DICK ' COKFKK HOUSE , IN GRAVEL STREET 16 April 1730 HATTON GARDEN , LONDON 1730 Castle , St . Giles' •1733 Blank 1737

Castle , St . Giles' 1738 Now which statement of Bro . Lane is correct ? In the FREEMASON ' CHRONICLE he virtually asserts that No . 67 was dead for eight successive years , and that the No . 67

of 1738 was not tho original No . 67 of 1730 , while in his own book he admits that No . 67 was alive at the " Castle , at St . Giles ' , " iu 1733 and after ; that it was erased , or

"blank , in 1737 , and that it was again at the " Castle , iu St . Giles ' , " in 1738 . Hence , instead of being absent from the List for eight years , it was absent only one year .

The uext question is , why was No . 67 expelled in 1737 ? Bro . Lane , indeed , says , " On Bro . Norton ' s own showing the old Lodge must have been erased , by virtue of the Grand Lodge law of the 24 th February 1735 . " But I showed

no such thing , for I did not know that it was expelled in 1737 ; I really believe that if the said Lodge had been expelled in 1 737 , for violating the law of February 1735 , that it would not have been restored in 1738 . But may not the Lodge have been erased in 1737 for an offence

which did not debar the Grand Lodge from restoring it to its original rank eveu after it was vacant more than a year ? The Lodge of Antiquity , for instance , was erased from the Lists for many years , but when it repented aud promised

to sin no more , it was restored to its old rank . Now , we fill know that between 1735 and about 1740 , owing to some real or imaginary grievances , a number of Lodges rebelled Against the Grand Lodge , and some of these Lodges were

afterwards restored . For instance , in the No . 12 List of the " Four Old Lodges , " the last Lodge in it being No . 152 , dated 31 st December 1736 , I find but one blank , viz ., No . 64 ; but in the next List ( 2 nd edition of the Pocket

Compauion ) , wherein the last Lodge , No . 160 , is dated 20 th April 1737 , I find the following numbers vacant , viz ., 2 , 17 , 26 , 28 , 29 , 41 , 58 , 64 , 67 , 100 , 115 , 116 and 120—sum total 13 Lodges , and twelve of these were erased within a little more or less than a year . On examining I he 1740 List I find that Nos . 17 . 26 and 67 were

restored . The most probable conclusion I can , therefore , come to is , that most of the said Lodges were not expelled for ceasing to meet for more than twelve months ; or , in other words , for having violated the law of February 1735 ,

but they were expelled for rebellion , and among those so expelled were Nos . 17 , 26 , and 67 . These Lodges having made submission , wero restored ; and from the unrestored

Lodges sprang up afterwards the brood now known as " Ancients . " Take it , therefore , all in all , I think that Bro . Lane ' s reasoning about No . 67 is as inconclusive as

his previous reasoning about No . 42 . To show , however , that a newly-created Lodge could not have been suffered by the Grand Lodge of that time

to assume the rank and number of an old extinct Lodge , I herewith give the law passed by the Grand Lodge , 27 th of December 1726 , viz . : —

"The precedency of Lodges is grounded on the seniority of their Constitution . "

Now , with the above law before me , I cannot see how the Grand Lodge at any time could have allowed entire newly formed Lodges to take precedency of older Lodges by

assuming he numbers of extinct Lodges . Such was , indeed , the practice among the Ancients , but I do not believe that the Moderns have ever done so . BOSTON , U . S ., 23 rd May 1887 .

A handsome stained glass window , from the studio of Mr . Tay lor of Beruers-iitrc"t , has been erected in the Baptistry of Harleaton Church , the t ^ 'iftof . Mrs . Huzurd , who . se family have been generous donors to tho Church in tho past . The subject of the window is " Christ biossing little children . "

Ar00402

FTJKNISHED APARTMENTS . V OUT IT FINCH LEY . —3 or 4 rooms ; separate kitchen ; with or , * without iittoiuliince ; piiino ; biith room ; pony chaise kept ; large gfirclen back and i ' r'uit . Seven miles trom London ; uuder I mile from Woodsirl e Park Station , G . N . It . ; omnibus to West JEnd four times a day . Z . Y . X ., Office ot the PiiiiiiiiAso . v'a CHBOHICLB .