History Of A Crime.

may judge of his surprise , however , when he received the Keystone of 11 th June last , wherein the decision of R . F . Gould , as expressed on the subject of the 1731 Lodge in Philadelphia , is at once adopted by the Editor of that paper .

That decision is , that if the Brethren at Philadelphia had any authority tor the establishment of their Lodge in 1731 , it must be held to have been by the immemorial right all Masons had in those early days to organise Lodges at will .

" Their meetings , " continues and concludes Bro . Gould , " for all we know to the contrary , may have been held before the era of Grand Lodges , and they certainly were before the influence of the earliest of these bodies had made itself felt across the seas . "

Thereupon Editor MacCalla , forgetful of his thirteen years support of the Daniel Coxe theory , crawls abjectly before this new idea—an idea by the way that has no support , as there is no proof whatever that those men

who subsequently fashioned it as such , as a Lodge , ever held a meeting at the Tun Tavern , or any where else in Philadelphia , before the year 1730 , and delivers himself of his adhesion incontinent to it as follows : —

" One could not ask a better endorsement than the above of the claim ( considered by us previously to have been abundantly authenticated and established ) of Philadelphia to be tbe premier city , the mother City of Masonry in

America . To say that ( as Bro . Gould does say ) "the Fraternity afc Philadelphia in 1731 must be held to be as much and as legally ( lawfully we would say ) a Grand Lodge as that of 'All England at York , ' is all that we

could wish . * * No warrant from Provincial Grand Master Coxe , or from the Grand Lodge of England ( whether either was obtained or not ) could have added to the lawful Masonic character of this Lodge . At that date it was just

as lawful a body as any subordinate Lodge is to-day (!) possessed of a warrant from a Grand Lodge . If there be any difference in rank it is in favour of the Philadelphia Lodge of 1730-31 , since it existed at and before the era

when Grand Lodges were first formed , and it was just such Lodges as it that in 1717 formed the first Grand Lodge of England . Boston had no such Lodge in 1730-31 , and hence Boston , according to Bro . Gould ' s just reasoning can

not rightfully claim to have been the first home of a lawful Lodge on this continent , while Philadelphia may . We thank Bro . Gould for bringing out so clearly and so conclusively this phase of Philadelphia Masonry , and we trust our Boston Brethren will make a note of it . "

There ; I hope Charles E . Meyer , after he has read fche foregoing will feel that he is properly rewarded for his loss of character in connection with his production of the Henry Bell letter . I hope he will feel that his able coadjutor has

succeeded in out-heroding Herod in the statement above , that iu 1730 ifc was just as lawful for men calling themselves Masons to organise themselves into a Lodge as it was for the men who composed the Grand Lodge of all England at

Tork , England , to do so many years before the first ; Grand Lodge of England was organised at London ; and that a charter from Daniel Coxe , which Charles E . Meyer committed a crime to prove they received , would not have

added in the slightest degree to the lawful character of their Tun Tavern Lodge , and this though B . Franklin , its Master in 1734 , has put himself on record as desiring that

this Lodge be chartered by Henry Price , the only man in America he then knew of , or believed to have power to do so .

Need I elaborate this history of a crime further ? Can their ever be a reader of it so lacking in common sense as not to fully appreciate its every part and , as a whole , as

having no parallel within the present century in the history of English Freemasonry in America , or any other country ? I think not .

Honorary Commander of fche American Knights Templars , and was presented with a magnificent gold jewel of his rank . Bro . Charles Hayer , of Philadelphia , made the presentation . " As the CHRONICLE is usually very correct in its spelling of proper names , the reason for its conduct > n thi . " hmtauce demands explanation ; for there can be no doubt that " Bro . Charles Hayer" is no other than Sir Knight Charles E . Meyer . CINCINNATI , OHIO , 15 th Aug . 1887 .

LA PAYETTE ' S OPINION OP FREEMASONRY . — " Freemasonry is an order whose leading star is philanthropy , and whose principles inculcate an unceasing devotion to the cause of virtue and morality . " European Masons are very attentive to the practical benevolence of Masonry . At a fair or festival in Hungary , for fche poor , the Masonio ladies raised about 10 , 000 franca .

Correspondence.

CORRESPONDENCE .

We do not hold ourselves responsible for the opinions of our Cor . respondents . All letters must bear 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 . — : o : —

A QUESTION TO BRO . GOULD . To the Editor of the FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —When I road Bro . Lane's startling announcement , that in 1768 , No . 77 , a Lodge constituted in 1735 , was assigned to an entire new Lodge at Wolverhampton , I was

reminded of somethiug of the kind whioh happened about the same time , to whioh Bro . Gould referred in his History . Afc first I thought that Bro . Gould mighfc have meant the Wolverhampton Lodge . In this , however , I was mistaken . Briefly then , on page 341 , Vol . IV . of Bro . Gould's History , Note 3 , I find : —

"Minutes of George Lodge , No . 4—then meeting at the George and Dragon , Grafton Street , St . Ann ' s . In 1767 , when removed to the Sun and "Punch Bowie , " its warrant was " sold or otherwise illegally disposed of" to certain brethren , who christened ifc " Friend , ship , " whioh name ifc still retains ( now No . 6 ) . Among fche offenders

were the Duke of Beaufort and Thomas French , shortly after Grand Master and Grand Secretary respectively of England . " Now , I have no objection to exposing the misdoings of Grand Masters and Grand Secretaries . If they did wrong , let it be known . But the qnestion is , was there any wrong done afc all ? The Lodge

may have been transferred from one body of members to another body , without any violation of law ; and if such could have been the case , unless there exists positive evidence to the contrary , we have no right to assume that '' its warrant was sold , or otherwise illegally disposed of . " I believe that I stated in a former paper , first , that

a Lodge has an undoubted right to admit new members , and second , that each member has a perfect right to resign his membership after he has paid up all dues . Now , suppose thafc after a number of new members were regularly ballotted for and unanimously accepted in the then Lodge No . 4 , which met at the Snn and Punch Bowie ,

the old members afterwards voluntarily resigned membership , which they had a right to do , hence I cannot see why the parties concerned in the said transaction could be charged with acting illegally ? For instance , the " Lodge of Tranquility , " now No . 185 , was at a very low ebb in January 1849 ; the Lodge was in debt to the Grand

Lodge , and fco the Hotel Keeper about £ 50 ; its membership was reduced to five individuals ; it held no meeting since the previous month of April , and it would probably never have held another meeting . But , just in the right nick of time , ten Masons offered fco join the said Lodge , and undertook fco lend the Lodge the necessary

funds for the payment of its debts . The result was , the Lodge met on 24 : h January 1849 , and the ten candidates for membership were elected . Bro . John Constable , in his History of the Lodge of Tranquility , says : — " An election then took place for W . M . and Treasurer , resulting in

favour of Bros . Barnett Moss and Lewis Isaacs respectively . " Both of which new Officers were new members . On 19 th February following the W . M . was installed , and he appointed Wardens , Deacons and Secretary , also from the new members . Suppose now , that after the election , the five old members had resigned membership ,

could any one assert that the Warrant of the Lodge of Tranquility was sold or otherwise illegally disposed of ? But I will go further , and suppose that there was a pre-arrangement or a mutual agreement for the five old members to resign after the new Officers were installed , what then ? and who lost anything

by the arrangement ? It is certain that if fche transfer of the Lodge had not been effected the old members could not have remained members of the Lodge for a very long time , in addition to which fchey would not bave been able to pay off their debts to the Grand Lodge , nor to the Hotel Keeper for the suppers he

had supplied them with , from which debts they were relieved by the new members ; and , on the other hand , the revived "Lodge of Tranquility , " under its new management , has ever since then maintained a high reputation , for respectability and intelligence of its members , for fche charity it distributes annually , and for the

generous welcome it invariably extends to worthy visitors . Now , it is not at all impossible—indeed , ifc is highly probablethafc the transaction of Lodge No . 4 , in 1767 , was conducted with the same legal * orm as that of the Lodge of Tranquility was in 1849 ; for I cannot believe thafc a Masonio body ever resorted to illegal means

when the object could have been attained by a regular legal process . Hence , unless Bro . Gould is in possession of positive evidence thafc the transaction of Lodge No . 4 in 1767 was illegal , the Duke of

Beaufort , Thomas French , and other parties concerned in the said transaction , cannot reasonably or justly be charged with having been guilty of a Masonic offence . Fraternally yours , JACOB N ORTON . Boston , U . S ., 16 th August 1887 .

" RETURNING TO LABOUR . " To the Editor of the FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —Under the above heading , in your leader of last Saturday ' s CHRONICLE , you refer to the occasional monotony and weariness felt in Lodges and Lodges of Instruction by fche iteration of the same phrases week by week and year by year ; and yon remark thafc if ifc be in the power of Masters and others to