Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
No. 79.
No . 79 .
BT BRO . R . F . GOULD . SO much has been written on the familiar subject dealt with by Bro . Lane in the CHRONICLE of last week , that I was in great doubt whether he would accept the challenge thrown down by Bro . Jacob Norton , and give us his reason for believing that the No . 79 , on the Engraved
List , was filled by some Lodge now unknown , before its assignment to that one recorded in the Register of the Grand Lodsre as meeting at the Castle of Hig hgate in 1731 or 1732 . This challenge , however , he has taken up ,
and though it is always a pleasure to read any observations by Bro . Lane on a subject which ho has studied more minutely and with greater diligence than any other man , living or deceased , the freshness which he contrives to
impart to a topic so much worn , combined with the vigour of his style , cannot fail to render the article more than ordinarily attractive , and there will be many , I apprehend , who , like myself , will regret the determination of the writer to make it his final essay of the series .
Bro . Lane argues with great power , but I think has confined himself within too narrow limits . Thus , to students of even a very few years standing , tbe No . 79 of
1731 is so much associated in the mind with the No . 79 of 1735 , that it is quite impossible to think of one without the other .
Bro . Hughan , as we all know , discovered a singular entry in the Pocket Companion ( Dublin ) 1735 , and casting about for an explanation , thought he had found it in the existence of a Philadelphia Lodge , at a date corresponding
with that of the No . 79 , on the roll of the Grand Lodge of England . With this of course most students are familiar , bnt the circumstance cannot he ignored when we leave , aa it were , one end of the story , and take up the other . The
microscopic examination of the early No . 79 only took place owing to the exigencies of the situation , and I put it to Bro . Lane himself , how many or how few Lodges of those
( almost ) pre-historic times does he believe could resist tbe formidable battery of criticism , which in like manner might be directed against what I may venture to term their external defences .
The inquiry , in short , cannot well , at least in my judgment , be restricted to the decision of a single issue . To all of us , the way Bro . Lane has of putting things will have a great attraction ; but to some the limitations he
prescribes to himself will recall , as it were , the features of a familiar play with certain of the leading r & les omitted ; while to others—and here I speak of those to whom tbe
subject is entirely new—it will seem that the value of the inquiry is wholly incommensurate to the labour bestowed npon it by Bro . Lane .
The case , as originally presented , rested on the supposition that a Lodge at Philadelphia obtained a footing in the English roll as No . 79 in 1730 or 1731 ; and against it there were a variety of objections , * to which , however ,
I shall only incidentally allude , because my object is not to gainsay what has been so ably and fairly stated by Bro . Lane , but to contend that he must widen the scope of
the discussion , or , in other words , continue or resume it on the old lines if it is to have any practical effect . Thus , for example , Bro . Lane ' s argument against the Lodge at the Castle , Highgate , being the original No . 79
seems to me to operate with even greater force m tbe case of the suppositious Lodge which he believes to have preceded it , as the latter was neither represented in Grand
Lodge or paid for a constitution af any time . True , it may have been a foreign Lodge , but here we miss the other portion of the evidence , without which it is quite impossible to proceed with the inquiry .
An anecdote , which I have somewhere read , here occurs to my mind , and I shall conclude by relating it . A game was being played , at which each player asked a question in turn , those persons who could not answer it
paying a forfeit , and also the questioner himself if he failed to solve his own riddle . One of these questions was the following : — " How does the little ground squirrel make his
nest in the ground , without leaving any dirt on the outside of the hole , at which he goes in " ? Forfeits were paid all round , and the person who had put the riddle then gave
No. 79.
the answer— " Because he begins at the other end . " " But how does he get there " ? burst forth an astonished hearer . To which the reply was made— " That is your own question answer it for yourself . "
Now , as it seems to me , the first question ( with some slight variation of terms ) might be asked in connection with the appearance of a Philadelphia Lodge in the Dublin Pocket Companion of 1735 . The first answer corresponds pretty
closely with the ingenious hypothesis of Bro . Hnghan , as propounded several years ago , and which we again meet with , though in a mnlitated form , in the article by
Bro . Lane ; while the final question of all suggests , what must occur to many minds when viewing- * the circumstances aa a whole , and endeavouring to identify an earlier Lodge as the No . 79 , than is shewn in the existing Register of the Grand Lodge of England .
Bro. Brennan's Attack.
BRO . BRENNAN'S ATTACK .
BT BRO . CHAS . E . METER . MY attention has been called to an article appearing in the FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE of 10 th September 1887
for which you gave the use of your space , and which through nearly five columns of your issue pretends to be a history of a crime , yet it contains not a single word in support of the claim made by Bro . Brennan ( except his'i pse
dixit ) that the Henry Bell letter was forged , and which is full of personal and libellous abuse of myself . Those who know me , know that I never have given anything to the Masonic world that I did not believe to be the truth , and
throughout the various items I have furnished , particularly in relation to the " Henry Bell " letter , I have been more than careful not to present any matter except that which after the strictest examination and scrutiny I was satisfied
was worthy of and entitled to belief . It seems strange that from 1873 , when the " Henry Bell " letter was first made public by R . W . Bro . Robert A . Lamberton , in his oration delivered at the dedication of the new Masonic
Temple in Philadelphia , up to the time of this abusive article of Brennan ' s , no one discovered this letter to be a forgery . It seems strange that until my article of 12 th of March 1887 , in the Keystone , giving the history of the
" Bell letter , " as far as I knew it , that it was not until nearly five months thereafter that Brennan was the first to cry " forgery , " and to brand the one who told its history as its maker ,
It seems strange that Brennan was the only person in this wild world to discover the " forgery , " and that he should rush in all haste as soon as he had discovered it , something over four thousand miles , over land and sea , to find a Masonic paper that would publish his article .
It is not my intention to discuss Brennan ' s charge , nor even reply to the same , because in so doing I should have to lower myself to his level ; but I desire to say , as plainly and distinctly as possible , that what I have written in
regard to the " Henry Bell" letter I do not recall , but reiterate it , in every particular . I believe now , as I did then , that Bro . Francis Blackburn copied the extract from the original letter . Bro . Blackburn was a gentleman whose
word was ever to be relied upon . R . W . Bro . Robert A . Lamberton used the extract as made by Bro . Blackburn in all confidence . When so published to the world , in his oration , I used it in the Early History of the Grand Lodge
of Pennsylvania , in the Dedication Memorial Volume , but before using it every means was taken to ascertain if the facts contained therein were true . As the result of my investigation , in which I was assisted by the Library
Committee , especially by Bro . William H . Egle , M . D ., now the Librarian of the State of Pennsylvania , and one of our leading historians—as the result of our investigations , we found : —
1 st . There was a Henry Bell who lived and paid taxes in Lanoaster county , Pa ., 1750-1755 . 2 nd . That there was a Doctor Thomas Cadwallader residing in
Philadelphia at that time . 3 rd . That Dr . Thomas Cadwallader was a Mason , and was one of the Officers of Grand Lodge .
4 th . That there was a Tan Tavern in Philadelphia afc thafc time . 5 th . That there were several Lodges reported to be in existence in Philadelphia in 1730 , and later ( see Pennsylvania Gazette ,
No . 108 , 3 rd December 1730 ) and that there were Lodges still in existence in Philadelphia on 24 th Jane 1754 ( see Smith ' s sermon , published by Franklin , a copy of which is in Library of Grand
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
No. 79.
No . 79 .
BT BRO . R . F . GOULD . SO much has been written on the familiar subject dealt with by Bro . Lane in the CHRONICLE of last week , that I was in great doubt whether he would accept the challenge thrown down by Bro . Jacob Norton , and give us his reason for believing that the No . 79 , on the Engraved
List , was filled by some Lodge now unknown , before its assignment to that one recorded in the Register of the Grand Lodsre as meeting at the Castle of Hig hgate in 1731 or 1732 . This challenge , however , he has taken up ,
and though it is always a pleasure to read any observations by Bro . Lane on a subject which ho has studied more minutely and with greater diligence than any other man , living or deceased , the freshness which he contrives to
impart to a topic so much worn , combined with the vigour of his style , cannot fail to render the article more than ordinarily attractive , and there will be many , I apprehend , who , like myself , will regret the determination of the writer to make it his final essay of the series .
Bro . Lane argues with great power , but I think has confined himself within too narrow limits . Thus , to students of even a very few years standing , tbe No . 79 of
1731 is so much associated in the mind with the No . 79 of 1735 , that it is quite impossible to think of one without the other .
Bro . Hughan , as we all know , discovered a singular entry in the Pocket Companion ( Dublin ) 1735 , and casting about for an explanation , thought he had found it in the existence of a Philadelphia Lodge , at a date corresponding
with that of the No . 79 , on the roll of the Grand Lodge of England . With this of course most students are familiar , bnt the circumstance cannot he ignored when we leave , aa it were , one end of the story , and take up the other . The
microscopic examination of the early No . 79 only took place owing to the exigencies of the situation , and I put it to Bro . Lane himself , how many or how few Lodges of those
( almost ) pre-historic times does he believe could resist tbe formidable battery of criticism , which in like manner might be directed against what I may venture to term their external defences .
The inquiry , in short , cannot well , at least in my judgment , be restricted to the decision of a single issue . To all of us , the way Bro . Lane has of putting things will have a great attraction ; but to some the limitations he
prescribes to himself will recall , as it were , the features of a familiar play with certain of the leading r & les omitted ; while to others—and here I speak of those to whom tbe
subject is entirely new—it will seem that the value of the inquiry is wholly incommensurate to the labour bestowed npon it by Bro . Lane .
The case , as originally presented , rested on the supposition that a Lodge at Philadelphia obtained a footing in the English roll as No . 79 in 1730 or 1731 ; and against it there were a variety of objections , * to which , however ,
I shall only incidentally allude , because my object is not to gainsay what has been so ably and fairly stated by Bro . Lane , but to contend that he must widen the scope of
the discussion , or , in other words , continue or resume it on the old lines if it is to have any practical effect . Thus , for example , Bro . Lane ' s argument against the Lodge at the Castle , Highgate , being the original No . 79
seems to me to operate with even greater force m tbe case of the suppositious Lodge which he believes to have preceded it , as the latter was neither represented in Grand
Lodge or paid for a constitution af any time . True , it may have been a foreign Lodge , but here we miss the other portion of the evidence , without which it is quite impossible to proceed with the inquiry .
An anecdote , which I have somewhere read , here occurs to my mind , and I shall conclude by relating it . A game was being played , at which each player asked a question in turn , those persons who could not answer it
paying a forfeit , and also the questioner himself if he failed to solve his own riddle . One of these questions was the following : — " How does the little ground squirrel make his
nest in the ground , without leaving any dirt on the outside of the hole , at which he goes in " ? Forfeits were paid all round , and the person who had put the riddle then gave
No. 79.
the answer— " Because he begins at the other end . " " But how does he get there " ? burst forth an astonished hearer . To which the reply was made— " That is your own question answer it for yourself . "
Now , as it seems to me , the first question ( with some slight variation of terms ) might be asked in connection with the appearance of a Philadelphia Lodge in the Dublin Pocket Companion of 1735 . The first answer corresponds pretty
closely with the ingenious hypothesis of Bro . Hnghan , as propounded several years ago , and which we again meet with , though in a mnlitated form , in the article by
Bro . Lane ; while the final question of all suggests , what must occur to many minds when viewing- * the circumstances aa a whole , and endeavouring to identify an earlier Lodge as the No . 79 , than is shewn in the existing Register of the Grand Lodge of England .
Bro. Brennan's Attack.
BRO . BRENNAN'S ATTACK .
BT BRO . CHAS . E . METER . MY attention has been called to an article appearing in the FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE of 10 th September 1887
for which you gave the use of your space , and which through nearly five columns of your issue pretends to be a history of a crime , yet it contains not a single word in support of the claim made by Bro . Brennan ( except his'i pse
dixit ) that the Henry Bell letter was forged , and which is full of personal and libellous abuse of myself . Those who know me , know that I never have given anything to the Masonic world that I did not believe to be the truth , and
throughout the various items I have furnished , particularly in relation to the " Henry Bell " letter , I have been more than careful not to present any matter except that which after the strictest examination and scrutiny I was satisfied
was worthy of and entitled to belief . It seems strange that from 1873 , when the " Henry Bell " letter was first made public by R . W . Bro . Robert A . Lamberton , in his oration delivered at the dedication of the new Masonic
Temple in Philadelphia , up to the time of this abusive article of Brennan ' s , no one discovered this letter to be a forgery . It seems strange that until my article of 12 th of March 1887 , in the Keystone , giving the history of the
" Bell letter , " as far as I knew it , that it was not until nearly five months thereafter that Brennan was the first to cry " forgery , " and to brand the one who told its history as its maker ,
It seems strange that Brennan was the only person in this wild world to discover the " forgery , " and that he should rush in all haste as soon as he had discovered it , something over four thousand miles , over land and sea , to find a Masonic paper that would publish his article .
It is not my intention to discuss Brennan ' s charge , nor even reply to the same , because in so doing I should have to lower myself to his level ; but I desire to say , as plainly and distinctly as possible , that what I have written in
regard to the " Henry Bell" letter I do not recall , but reiterate it , in every particular . I believe now , as I did then , that Bro . Francis Blackburn copied the extract from the original letter . Bro . Blackburn was a gentleman whose
word was ever to be relied upon . R . W . Bro . Robert A . Lamberton used the extract as made by Bro . Blackburn in all confidence . When so published to the world , in his oration , I used it in the Early History of the Grand Lodge
of Pennsylvania , in the Dedication Memorial Volume , but before using it every means was taken to ascertain if the facts contained therein were true . As the result of my investigation , in which I was assisted by the Library
Committee , especially by Bro . William H . Egle , M . D ., now the Librarian of the State of Pennsylvania , and one of our leading historians—as the result of our investigations , we found : —
1 st . There was a Henry Bell who lived and paid taxes in Lanoaster county , Pa ., 1750-1755 . 2 nd . That there was a Doctor Thomas Cadwallader residing in
Philadelphia at that time . 3 rd . That Dr . Thomas Cadwallader was a Mason , and was one of the Officers of Grand Lodge .
4 th . That there was a Tan Tavern in Philadelphia afc thafc time . 5 th . That there were several Lodges reported to be in existence in Philadelphia in 1730 , and later ( see Pennsylvania Gazette ,
No . 108 , 3 rd December 1730 ) and that there were Lodges still in existence in Philadelphia on 24 th Jane 1754 ( see Smith ' s sermon , published by Franklin , a copy of which is in Library of Grand