Our Masonic Annals.

Constitutions were submitted to him , in which his father was declared to be Grand Master , and he sent a copy with this statement , and so to say on his special authorisation

and verification , to a Lodge at Chichester , tho presumption in favour of Anderson and " Multa Faucis " being right after all , and historically correct , are sensibly increased .

We must remember that , at this distance of time , all discussions turn after all on assumptive conclusions , and based on " ipse dixits " on the one hand , as opposed to assumptive conclusions based on " ipso dixits" on the

other ; and that the writer nearer to tho time , ( 134 years ago ) , is more likely to be expected to tell us right than a much later writer , unless you can fairly allege taint , fatuity , or incompetency against the older scribe .

There areas regards the first Duke of Richmond several sources of information yet unsearched , and until all such are exhausted we cannot safely accept an ex parte dictum nor has any one a right to say that the matter is decided , and that Anderson and " Multa Faucis" are absolutely wrong .

An Important Suggestion.

AN IMPORTANT SUGGESTION .

By BRO . JNO . LANE . THE latest work on Freemasonry , " Masonic Facts and Fictions , " by Brother H . Sadler G . T ., and Sub-Librarian of the Grand Lodge of England , is now before me . It is a very readable and instructive book , exhibiting

evidence of careful labour and research , which I trust will be duly rewarded , and I sincerely congratulate Bro . Sadler on its appearance and value .

On page 44 the following Extract from the Grand Lodge Minutes of 24 th June 1731 is

given"A petition was presented and signed by several Brethren , prayinothat they may be admitted into the Grand Lodge , and Constituted into a Eegnlar Lodge at the Three Kings in Crispian Street , Spittle

Fields . After some debate , several Brethren present vouching that they were regular Masons , they were admitted , and the Grand Master declared that he or his Deputy would Constitute them accordingly , and signed their petition for that purpose . " Bro . Sadler

adds" It is impossible to ascertain whether this Lodge was regularly Constituted in conformity with the Grand Master ' s promise . I cannot find that the usual fee for a Constitution was ever paid ; 10 s 6 d is

recorded io its credit on the day the Petition was read , and the same amount on the 3 rd of December following , after which I can find no truce of it in any of the lists of Lodges extant j it had either removed to some other house , or was never further acknowledged . "

On reading this my thoughts immediately reverted to No . 79 , and remembering having made notes about this very Lodge , for further inquiry or investigation , on turning over my papers I found I had two references to a Lodge

at the place indicated , viz .: on 14 th May 1731 , when the Grand Lodge Minutes state , " 3 Kings Spittlefields agreed to be constituted ; " and again on the day referred to by Bro . Sadler , 24 th June 1731 . Unfortunately , in the latter

instance , the names of the Lodges attending Grand Lodo-e are not given , but only certain of them , nine in number , are noted as contributing to the Charity . In this short

list " Three Kings , Spittlefields is at the end , the Lodges being given in order of seniority ( although not numbered ) , the Lodge immediately preceding being " White Bear in King si , Golden Square , " which was No . 76 .

Whatever may be the outcome of the controversy in relation to No . 79 , I venture to suggest the possibilit y , at any rate , that the Lodge at the " Three Kings , Spittle Fields , " which the Grand Lodge Minutes on 14 th May

1731 affirm " agreed to be constituted , " and which on the following 24 th June " the Grand Master declared that he or his Deputy would Constitute , " had a definite place assigned

to it on the recognised List of Regular Lodges , and which place one is led almost irresistibly to conclude was that of the number 79 .

If this be so , it necessarily disposes , to a considerable extent , of that part of the question as to the Lodge No . 79 being identical with the Lodge at Philadelphia , although the difficulty of the Dublin Pocket Companion of 1735 will still remain to be solved .

But , assuming this Lodge at the Three Kings , Spittlefields" to have been duly constituted , and numbered 79 , it confirms the opinion I have repeatedly expressed , founded on the internal evidences of the Lists aud Minutes , that there was a Lodge ( although I could not say where

An Important Suggestion.

located ) having the No . 79 prior to that which subsequently appeared with the same number at the " Castle in Highgate . " As Masonic students we do not wish to stifle

investigation , but rather court the fullest inquiries , and consequently the more facts that can be brought to light , the more likely are we to arrive at safe and reliable conclusions . I cordially thank Bro . Sadler for his contribution towards so desirable a result .

I may add that there was another Lodge at the same place , described in the MS . List of 1731-2 as "Three Kings in Spittlefields , removed to the Sash and Cocoa Tree in Upper Moorfields . " This was No . 37 , constituted in July 1724 , and erased on 14 th April 1746 (" Masonic Records , " p 20 ) .

It may possibly be that when No . 37 removed from the "Three Kings , Spittlefields" some other brethren , or perhaps the proprietor of the tavern , endeavoured to get another Lodge to assemble there , or else to form a new

Lodge .. Hence the removal of No . 37 to the "Sash and Cocoa Tree in Upper Moorfields " may have occasioned the petition to which Bro . Sadler so interestingly alludes , and as there are many who would be glad of any additional

information that might enable them to satisfactorily identify this Lodge at the " Three Kings , Spittlefields , " with the early No . 79 , I hope further light may yet be obtained .

The fact that there is no entry of a payment of the usual fee for Constitution goes very far to prove that although the petition was granted , and the Lodge ( as a necessary consequence , I think ) placed on the List , yet the

omissionor perhaps refusal—to pay the usual fee may have been the cause of its very speedy removal from the Register of Lodges . This also is quite in accord with , and tends to confirm , the inferences I have already recorded that the

Lodge at the " Castle in Highgate" did not appear on the List until November 1732 , when , through the erasure of this or some other Lodge , it received the position and number 79 , which was then vacant . TORQUAY , 11 th November 1887 .

Influence Of The Masonic Press.

INFLUENCE OF THE MASONIC PRESS .

[ COJIHTJinCATED . ] IT strikes me as a curious coincidence that whereas , under ordinary circumstances , a Masonic newspaper is often cast aside , or cursorily glanced through , yet whenever any event occurs in which the individual is personally

concerned , there is an . imperative and impatient demand for " my paper . " I suppose it is so in most other phases of life ; we run at such a pace now-a-days that unless

something immediately affecting ourselves or the little world in which we move interests us , the rest may whirl by as of no concern of ours . But it has occurred to me , and

several times lately , that much valuable information is lost by this loose and careless dealing with matters that should be kept under constant observation . A worthy and respected Preceptor said to me , once upon a time , when I asked him if he had read such an article in the Masonic

Press , " Bah ! what do we want with Masonic papers ? We know more than they can teach us ! " Rapt in the complacency of his own egotism , he spurned the copy of the journal which I proffered him , and went—down to the

bar and had two-penn ' orth ! The same man , when he accepted a Stewardship at one of the Festivals , was the first to come to me and beg , " Can you do anything , through the influence of your ' valuable journal' ( mark !)

that will assist me with my list ? " I did the best I could , of course , as anybody else would do , and that Preceptor is now a regular subscriber to , and reader of , your " valuable journal . " Perhaps you did not know that before , but it is a fact nevertheless .

Standing one night on the platform of a suburban railway station a little passage-at-arms somewhat amused me , and it will bear telling , though of course there shall 1 T" > ' be no names . There had been an election for the Boys

School , and a certain candidate had been elected . But , strangely enough , the FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE hnd discovered that the lad's father at his decease had left the

widow a comfortable competency upon which to bring up her family . He had been a prosperous man of business ; had done his share of Masonic work , and was m