Correspondence.

CORRESPONDENCE .

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

MASONS AND MASONIC DINING . To the Editor of the FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE . SIR AND BROTHER , —I presume I am right in assuming that the

report that appeared in last Monday's daily newspapers of the doings of the Grand Lodge of Mark Mister Masons of the previous Saturday is correct ? It is recorded that they met at Freemasons' Hall to transact business , and afterwards adjonrned to the Holborn

Restaurant to dine . No doubt the latter place is worthy of the patonage Freemasons bestow upon it j I have no complaint to make against it ; on the contrary , I believe it to be admirably adapted for all dining purposes . But what strikes me as very strange is , that with Messrs . Spiers and Pond at Freemasons' Hall for the express purpose of ministering to the inner man , it is considered necessary

to go elsewhere so frequently to dine . What is tho cause of this singular habit on the part of many brethren ? I always thought that Freemasons' Hall was for Freemasons , and that they held it a first duty to patronise their own friends in preference to strangers . In this instance , not only are Messrs . Spiers and Pond friends , as understood in the ordinary sense of the term , bnt also , in a special degree ,

as tenants . Why , then , do so many seek in foreign quarters what they should be able to obtain quite as well in their own home P There must be a cause for this singular practice of migration . I believe there is no restaurant at the Hall , and yet when attending a recent election I and another brother were able to get a chop and necessary accompaniments . But I am informed that that was only

a temporary arrangement , and by no means as perfect as it should have been . Personally I was well served , and have no fault to find . Then , I believe , there are no club facilities , such as are to be found at the Holborn Restaurant and elsewhere . If this is so , the fault may not be that of Messrs . Spiers and Pond , whose facilities may be limited . These considerations are , by the way ; the main question is ,

why do some of our Lodges go from home to dine ? It cannot be owing to lack of skill in management , for I believe Brother Dawkins is equal to any demands that might be made upon him in the way of catering . Is there a lack of accommodation , a want of enterprise , or the absence of desire to meet tha wishes and wants of the Craft ? It may be that some of the leading brethren are whimsical ,

and prefer strange to familiar haunts . Whatever may be the cause , I think it a grave scandal that so many leave Freemasons' Hall to go elsewhere to get necessary refreshments . If it is the fault of management , then an authoritative protest should be made ; if it arises from prejudice and a hankering after novelty , then I would suggest that a kind of remonstrance should be made by those who , from age and

experience , might speak without giving offence . Messrs . Spiers aipd Pond owe it to themselves to clear the matter up , and if they are wronged it is only just and right that the facts should be known and a remedy sought . While on the question of the Tavern , I might point out that as bajls

take place in that part of the building devoted to general purposes , great care ought to be taken against fire . Such assemblies have often ended in serious conflagrations , and too much caution cannot be observed in providing against a similar catastrophe at Freemasons' Tavern . Yours fraternally , I . P . M .

No . 79 WAS UNDOUBTEDLY AN ENGLISH LODGE .

To the Editor of the FREEMASON s CHRONICLE . DEAR SIE AND B ROTHER , —About seven years ago , we had a discussion about the origin of a legally constituted Grand Lodge in Philadelphia , and I have since then sent to your paper several communications upon the same subject , showing in each of my communications additional evidence that the Grand Lodge in Philadelphia in

1732 was constituted without authority from the Grand Lodge of England . Before , however , I proceed to submit some further evidence , permit me , for the information of your new readers , to state briefly the arguments upon which our Philadelphian brethren have based their theory . 1 st . Dr . Franklin , in his newspaper of 8 th December 1730 , stated :

" As there are several Lodges erected in this Province , " & c . Now , as there is not the slightest doubt that Franklin was not a Mason in 1730 , his statement may therefore be regarded either as an invention or an exaggeration . In short , nobody believes in the statement of " several Lodges , " even in Philadelphia . . ' 2 nd . At the dedication of the Philadelphia Masonic Temple about ten

years ago , the orator cited a fragment from a letter said to have been written 17 th November 1754 , by Henry Bell , of Lancaster , Pennsylvania , to Thomas Cadwallader , of Philadelphia , in which Bell . claimed that he was one of the originators of a Lodge in Philadelphia in 1730 , and that he and others subsequently obtained a charter from Daniel Coxe , who was appointed Prov . Grand Master iu 1730 , over

New York , New Jersey , and Pennsylvania . This letter is evidentl y an imposition , for the several papers and orations upon this question , which have appeared in the Philadelphia Keystone during the last two years , are minus of the Henry Bell letter , thongh all the other arguments were carefully repeated ; and with regard to Coxe , there is no evidence whatever that either Franklin or any other prominent

Philadelphia Mason , knew anything about Coxe , and there is no evidenco that Coxe had ever done anything iu Masonry , even in New Jersey , where he resided . And 3 rd . We have Rawlinson's Lodge list , which terminates with No . 115 , constituted in July 1733 , in whioh list No . 79 is vacant ; that is , the number 79 is there , but the place of its meeting ia

omitted , signifying that the Lodge was extinct in 1733 . We have Pine ' s official engraved Lodge list of 1734 , in whioh No . 79 is blank , and we have likewise Smith's " Masonio Pocket Companion , " printed in London in 1735 , to which is appended a Lodge of 1734 , in which No . 79 is again blank . Here we have the evidence of three English writers , some of whom undoubtedly

had access to the Grand Lodge of England's archives , who all agree that Lodge No . 79 was for some reason erased from the English Register . But iu a Dublin reprint of Smith ' s " Pocket Companion " in 1735 , the blank to No . 79 is filled up , with "At the Hoop , Water Street , Philadelphia , " and upon his evidence , our Philadelphian friends , and our English Bro . Hughan , claim that No . 79 was

chartered in London for Philadelphia . But that is not all . I have a London " Pocket Companion , " to which is appended a Lodge list of 1737 , in whioh list I find that No . 79 was then located at the Crown and Angel in Little St . Martin ' s Lane , in London . I therefore come to the conclusion that No . 79 , after being dropped from the English Register for several years , was

restored to its original number in tho beginning of 1735 . I say 1735 , because , on the 24 th of February 1735 , the Grand Lodge of . England passed a law that if a Lodge within the Bills of Mortality shall cease to meet for twelve months , its name shall be erased from the Grand Lodge book , and from the engraved Lodge list , viz ., Pine ' s ' Lodge list already referred to ; and if the brethren of an erased Lodge should petition for its revival , they cannot have their old number or

precedency , and it is highly probable that this very petition for the restoration of Lodge No . 79 suggested the enactment of that law in 1735 . These and many more arguments npon this subject are not new , but I shall now proceed to furnish evidence whioh will be fresh to our Philadelphia friends . On page 50 of Bro . Gould ' s " Four Old Lodges , " a Lodge list , or list of English Lodges , is thus prefaced .

LIST OT LODGES 1730-32 . ( From the Minute Book of the Grand Lodge ) . " This list seems to have been continued from 1730 to 1732 , and is thus headed in the earliest Minute Book of the Grand Lodge . " List of the names of the members of all the regnlar Lodges as they were returned in the year 1730 . " In the list following the

above I find that No . 79 used to meet at that time at the " Castle , in Highgate . " Now , I know where Highgate is located , near London , but I never heard that , in or near Philadelphia , there was a place called Highgate in 1730 . No . 79 must therefore have been originally in 1730 in Highgate , near London , and not in Philadelphia . The record to whioh Bro . Gould refers I saw in 1880 . Bro . Gould himself called

my attention to it . It is not a Lodge list or a list of Lodges in the way lists of Lodges appear in the old Pocket Companions , or in the modern Masonic Calendars , but at the , head of each page is written the number of a Lodge , with the name of the publichouse where it held its meetings , and this is followed with the names of the members of the said Lodge . Now , the page on the record , to whioh I beg to call attention , is as follows : —

' 79 , Castle , in Highgate . " Thos . Moore , Esq ., Master . Mr . Thos . Clypperton . Mr . Thomas Crawford Warden . Mr . Richard Busby , i ^ - Dr . Phillip Chandler Warden . Claud Crespigny , Esq . t Alexr . Chocke , Esq . i ^ - Vinal Taverner , Esq . t- ~ Nathl . Blackerby , Esq . W — Shealwood , Esq . James Smythe , Esq . ^_ — Fage , Esq .

John Pollex , Esq . \ y Mr . Richard Baugh . John Bridges , Esq . i— - Mr . Harry Walthoe . Mr . Edward Price . Mr . Joshua Lewis . Mr . Humphrey Primale . Dr . Cotton . Mr . John Plumert . John Pawlet , Esq . Mr . Henry Stone Street . Mr . Lester King . Mr . Thos . Jeffreys . Mr . Peter Wright .

The lists of the names of the members of the Lodges in the said record were copied from reports made to the G . L . early in 1730 , when Lord Level was G . M . Here , then , is irrefutable evidence that Lodge No . 79 , of 1730 , held its earliest meetings at the Castle , in Highgate . Here are also the names of its officers and members as reported to Grand Lodge in 1732 .

And , what is more , several of those members held distinguished positions in the Grand Lodge of England . Thus Bro . Alexander Chocke was G . S . W . in 1726 and D . G . M . in 1727 , Bro . Nathaniel Blakerby was S . G . W . in 1727 , D . G . M . in 1729 and 1730 , and G . T . from 1728 to 1737 , James [ Moore ] Smythe was G . S . in 1732 and J . G . W . in 1733 , Claud Crespigny was G . S . in 1732 , Vinal Taverner was G . S . in 1732 , Richard Baugh was G . S . in 1733 , Thomas Jeffreys was G . S . in

1733 , and Thomas Moore was G . S . in 1731 . Now , \ vith all these facts before us , I ask , in the name of common sense , how can a rational and conscientious man pretend to believe that Lodge No . 79 was located in Philadelphia in 1730 ? Fraternally yours , JACOB NORTON . Boston , U . S ., 27 th Nov . 1883 .

HOLLOWAY ' OINTMENT AND PILLS . —Sure Belief . —The weak and enervated suffer severely from nervous affections when storms or fogs prevail . Neuralgia , gouty pangs , and rheumatic pains , very distressing to a delicate system , may be readily removed by rubbing this Ointment upon the affected and adjacent parts after they have been fomented with warm water . The Pills taken

occasionally in the doses prescribed by the instructions keep the digestion in order , excite a free flow of healthy bile , and regenerate the impoverished blood with , richer materials , resulting from thoroughly assimilated food , wanting which the strongest must inevitably soon sink into feebleness , and the delicate find it difficult to maintain existence . Holloway ' s Ointment and Pills are infallible remedies .