Resignation Of Membership.

his membership was ended , and a line was struck . After that he was no longer a member of the Lodge , and should he desire to again become associated with it a iresh proposition and a fresh ballot would be necessary . This may be a severe way of asserting

the laws of the Craft , but , as was pointed out , it was a very intelligible and clear rule to lay down , and it avoided difficulties . Many of our readers , who have had experience in regard to the resignation of members from their Lodges , will no doubt be able to apply this ruling to special cases , and then annreciate the nrincmle on which it is based .

The consideration of the whole subject of resignation may be said to have been re-opened by this discussion of last week , and as good must result from a better knowledge of the laws which govern Freemasonry , we are very pleased it received so much attention from the officials and members of Grand Lodge .

No. 79 Once More.

No . 79 ONCE MORE .

By BRO . JACOB NORTON . A S it is now about two years since the question JLX . about No . 79 was diecussed , I must briefly give an explanation for the information of late subscribers to this paper , namely : —In the London edition of Smith ' s

Pocket Companion , 1735 , No . 79 in the Lodge List is followed by a blank , but in a reprint of the same book in Dublin , in 1735 , the blank was filled up with " The Hoop , in Water Street , Philadelphia , 1 st Monday . " Now , sinco 1874 , the Philadelphians set up a claim that because Daniel Coxe was appointed Prov . G . M ., in 1730 , over New York ,

New Jersey and Pennsylvania , and because a Lodge was started in Philadelphia in 1731 , and becanse the said Lodgo dubbed itself " Grand Lodge" in 1732 , therefore Philadelphia mnst have received its Masonic authority from Daniel Coxe .

As previous Masonic historians , as a rule , always reasoned after the above fashion , it is no wonder that Bro . MacCalla , of Philadelphia , at once converted the highest American Masonic luminaries to his new theory . Bufc , strange fco say , our English Masonic writers were also sucked into Brother MncCalla ' s delusion . I , however , endeavoured to show up

the baselessness of Bro . Mac Calla ' s reasoning , but for some timo it was uphill work . About a dozen years ago Bro . Hughan got hold of the Dublin edition of the " Pocket Companion , " and finding therein that No . 79 was then located in Philadelphia , he of course published his discovery ,

which naturally filled the hearts of our American Masonic luminaries with gladness . For instance , I happened by ' mere accident to take up the Cincinnatti Masonic Review , and to my surprise I saw an article headed " What will Jacob Norton say to it ? " The heading was followed by an

article from ihe Keystone . Jacob Norton , however , did say something , and he convinced impartial readers that Brother Mac Calla ' s reasoning was fallacious . The last contention

1 had about No . _ 9 was with Bro . John Lane , for having put into his " Masonic Records " about No . 79 the words from the Dublin Pocket Companion , to which , however , Bro . Lane added— " This in the Dublin List of 1735 .

Warranted for America , but probably Warrant never used . " Recently , however , even Bro . Hughan pronounced tbat No . 79 having ever been connected with Philadelphia was

" exploded " ( that is Bro . Hughan ' s own word ) , and I was in hopes to hear no more about No . 79 , bufc about a month ago a Brother called my attention to Bro . Lane ' s new book , viz ., " Hand Book for tho Lists of Lodges , " to the

following , .: — " It is only necessary for me now to remark thafc ifc may be fairly assumed thafc the interpolation of ' The Hoop in Water Street , ' & c , into a copy of whafc was virtually an official List would scarcely have been made without some reason thafc afc the time appeared both adequate and satisfactory to the compiler of fche [ Dublin ] List . "

Bufc with all due respect to Bro . Lane , the Dublin List was not an official List ; the compiler was appointed by nobody io make the said Lodge List , and we do nofc even know about his character or by what name he was called ; and , on the other hand , Bro . Smith must have acquired his information either from a previously printed List , or from the Grand Secretary of England direct ; hence , if even

No. 79 Once More.

no other evidence existed , I think that the evidence derived from Bro . Smith ' s own Lodge List , that No . 70 was erased in 1735 , is certainly preferable to the evidence furnished by a nameless Dublin individual . And now for the evidence about No . 79 , obtainable both direct and indirect .

First , No . 79 was in 1731 located at the Castlo , in Highgate . Second , it paid to tho Grand Lodgo of England £ 2 2 s for its charter . And third , the names of the Officers and members of No . 79 were placed on a Eecord in 1732 , which Eecord I saw myself . So mnch for direct evidence that No . 79 was a London Lodge in 1732 . And now for indirect evidence that No . 79 was never sent to Philadelphia .

First , it seems that no official Lodge List was printed in London either in 1730 , 1731 , 1732 , or 1733 . Hence Dr . Rawlinson took the trouble during the summer of 1733 to compile a List of Lodges for his own use . This he could not have done without consulting the Grand Secretary . The Lodges in the said list are brought down to No . 116 , and in the said List No . 79 is followed bv a blank .

Second , in 1734 Bro . Pine published an official engraved Lodge List . The last Lodge on the said list is No . 128 , and its date is 5 th November 1734 , and in the said official List No . 79 is also blank . Third , as already stated , Smith's own Lodge List of 1735 ( bnt really of 1734 ) agrees with the other compilers of Lodge Lists , that No . 79 was erased . Thus no one in

Juondon during tne year Li 6 % or to very near its close , seems to have had the least idea that No . 79 was ever sent to Philadelphia . And now let us see whether any one in Philadelphia knew that Lodge No . 79 was located there ? I have already referred to the origin of Masonry in Philadelphia in 1731 . Now Benjamin Franklin was Masonized there in 1731 . In 1733 he visited Boston , where he met with Henry Price , and where he probably

saw Anderson ' s Constitutions of 1723 , from which he learned that ho was after all a mere bogus Mason . Price then claimed to be Grand Master of New England only , and

had no jurisdiction over Pennsylvania . In 1834 Franklin was elected so-called Grand Master in Philadelphia . In 1734 he republished Anderson ' s Constitutions , and Price acted as Franklin's agent for the sale of the said

Constitutions , and letters were evidently exchanged between them . But while Franklin was pondering in his mind as to how ho could get his Lodge legalised , something was brooding in Philadelphia , and he saw something in a Boston paper , which caused him to write an official letter to Henry Price , and on the same sheet he wrote a private

letter , giving further explanation . In the official letter

Franklin wrote as follows : — " We have seen in the Boston prints an article of news from London , importing that at a Grand Lodge held there in August last , Mr . Price's Deputation and power was extended over all America . . . . . We think ifc our duty to lay before your Lodge what we

apprehend needful to be done for us in order to promote and strengthen the interest of Masonry in this Province , which seems to want some sanction of some authority derived from home to givo tho proceedings and determinations of this Lodge due weight , to wife , a Deputation or Charter granted by the Right Worshipful Mr . Price , " & c .

In the private letter Franklin said : — " I beg leave to recommend their [ the Philadelphian brethren's ] request to you , and to inform you that some false and rebel brethren , who are foreigners , being about to set up a distinct Lodge in opposition to the old and true brethren here , pretending to make Masons

for a bowl of punch , and the Craft is to come into disesteem among ui unless the true brethren are countenanced and distinguished by some special authority as herein desired . I entreat , therefore , that whatever you shall think proper fco do therein , may bo sent by tho next post , or the nexfc following . " Now , any one who can understand the English language

must admit—First , that up to 28 th November 1734 ( the date when the above letters were written ) the Philadelphia Lodgo had never received any authority from any one ; and

second , as Franidin mentions in his letters his own Lodge and a rebel Lodge , he must therefore have known nothing about Lodge No . 79 , at the Hoop , in Water Street , Philadelphia . It is indeed not impossible that the " rebel Lodge " may have held its meetings at tho Hoop , in Water Street , but can any one believe that the said rebel Lodge was No . 79 ? To the above I must add that on the 24 th of February 1735 the Master and Wardens of No . 79 attended the Grand Lodge of England . And Picard's engraved Lodge List , which terminates with No . 129 , showing that it was printed after Pine ' s 1734 List , bufc ifc must also have been