Correspondence.

matter up . I remember once , in Bolton , being shown the minutes of ono of the Lodges there . It was stated that Mr . " Smith" was proposed by letter to the W . M . according f o the Boofc 0 / Constitutions , and that previous to the ballot being taken , the W . M . ordered the Secretary to record that the emergent nature of the proposition was caused by the desire of tho candidate to be present at the Festival of

St . John , which was to be celebrated that night . This was accepted as a valid excuse , and the candidate duly admitted . Now , in this case , although we may look on the reason as paltry , a bad excuse is better than none , and the laws of the Craft wore strictly obeyed . When we compare the West Yorkshire custom with that prevailing in London wo find another departure from tho letter of the law , but

one in strict accordance with the spirit which strives to prevent the admission of objectionable candidates . It is usual ( in Sheffield , for example ) that on the regular Lodge night in ( say ) January , a brother having a candidate to propose , rises and says : " It is my intention at our next regular meeting to propose Mr . So-and-So as a candidate for initiation . " Previous to the meeting in February , this

intention , or notice of motion , is placed on every Lodge summons , and sent to the Provincial Grand Secretary , as well as to every member . The candidate , should no objection be made , is regularly proposed , and his name placed on the summonses calling the meeting in March , in the usual form . Should tho ballot bo favourable , the candidate , who is not awaiting the result in the ante-room , is asked

to attend the regular Lodge in April , when ho is admitted to our Ancient and Honourable Order , after every possible care has been taken to test and prove his eligibility . If these extraordinary precautions are necessary in Sheffield , where the Craft numbers 300 members and three Lodges , how much moro careful should we be in our " great city , " where the Lodges aro numbered by hundreds , and

the name of the brethren is Legion , that no unworthy aspirant should be admitted to our mysteries ? Should any of tho London Lodges think the law as to proposing candidates a hard one , they are at liberty to endeavour to alter it by a vote of Grand Lodge . Until this is done , and I trust it never will , the law must bo obeyed ; it is perfectly clear and emphatic , and

requires no explanation . We should ever remember tho words of our M . W . G . M ., H . E . H . the Duke of Sussex , — " I exhort you , brethren , never , collectively or individually , to suffer a breach of the Constitutions of tho Craft . . . ever vindicating the laws and regulations , which being made in hours of cool reflection , after long and serious deliberation , provide a remedy for the correction of every abuse . " I am , yours faithfully and fraternally , C . F . MATIER . P . M .

CHEVALIER RAMSAY'S APOLOGY

To the Editor-of THE FREEMASON ' CHRONICLE . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —A copy of the Eelation Apologique , by Chevalier Eamsay , the French Edition , 1738 , described by Bro . Jacob Norton , was sold in my father ' s collection at Sotheby ' s auction in 1875 , Lot 3 , by whom purchased I do not know . It is extremely scarce . A notice of it appears in No . 26 of your paper .

Three of tho " mysterious letters " probably signify Maitre Franc-Macon . To the best of my recollection , tho work throws no light on the origin of the E . A . degree . I believe there must be a copy in the library at the Masonio Hall , 33 Golden-square .

Yours faithfully , 23 A Great Qneen-street , WALTER SPENCER 24 th July 1877 .

REGALIA . To the Editor of THE FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —Permit me , while thanking " E . S . Y . C . S . " for his complimentary expressions towards myself , to point out that , in my humble judgment , he has lost sight of the real point of my letter . I argue that it is not the consistency of certain degrees with those recognised by Craft Masonry , to which the Constitutions point

in the laws and regulations relating to Kegalia , but the consistency of certain jewels with those degrees . The wording of the law is clear enough : " No honorary or other jewel or emblem shall be worn . . . . which shall not appertain to or be consistent with those degrees " Thore are but three degrees , including the E . A ., in Craft Masonry , and , therefore , jewels or emblems appertaining to ,

or consistent with , other than those degrees so defined are pointedly forbidden to be worn . The law does not go the length of condemning the " high" and " side " degrees as inconsistent with tho degrees of Craft Masonry . It says nothing whatever about them , for the simple reason , as I imagine , that to do so would be , in a certain sense , to acknowledge them , and that officially . Tho object

is to define strictly what jewels or emblems a brother may , and what he may nob wear , in a Craft Lodge . Tho law does not say there are no other than the Craft degrees including the E . A . On the contrary , tho clause is so worded as , to my mind , deliberately to sanction the inference that there are degrees which are not" recognised and acknowledged by , and are " not " under tho control of the Grand Lodge ,

as part of pare and antiont masonry . " If this argument holds good , then it follows that all jewels or emblems appertaining to , or consistentwith , such other unrecognised degrees arc distinctly forbidden to be worn in Craft Lodges . Tho very first regulation of all declares that " pure Antient Masonry consists of three degrees and no more , " and then it goe 3 on to name them . If we read tho regulations as to Eogalia with this clear and precise definition of " pure Antient ¥ a 3 onry , " it jg impossible , to come to any other conclusion than that

Correspondence.

all other degrees , be they consistent or inconsistent with pure and antient Masonry , havo absolutely no part or parcel in it whatever . Ergo , the jewels or emblems appertaining to or consistent with theso outside degrees must not be worn in Craft Lodges . With all due respect to " E . S . Y . C . S ., " I do not see how I was straining my argument , when I interpreted tho law as I did , or that there

is any material difference between a law which says , " No jewel shall be worn which shall not appertain to , or be consistent with , certain recognised degrees , " and " No jewel appertaining to or inconsistent with any unrecognised degrees shall be worn . " There may , perhaps , be a distinction without a difference , in so far as this ; that , iu tho former case , wo have it laid down , in effect , though not in words ,

what jewels shall bo worn ; while in tho latter case , wo have ib defined what shall not bo worn . It seems to me , however , these propositions are properly interchangeable , as virtually determining one and the same point . Or , possibly , I shall explain my meaning more clearly , if I say that tho law , as laid down in tho Constitutions ,

declares absolutely that only the jewels or emblems which appertain to , or are consistent with , certain recognised degrees , shall be worn in Craft . Lodges , while , as I phrased it , tho law declares quite as absolutely , that the jewels or emblems of unrecognised degrees shall not be worn .

In the second paragraph of my letter , I simply endeavoured to show what the effect might be if " E . S . Y . C . S . ' s" objection to wearing tho insignia of tho Bath or Garter in a Craft Lodge wero carried to its logical conclusion . If , I suggested , all but Masonic Eegalia are illegal , then all but Masonio clothing must be illegal likewise : for

tho law is distinct as to what " clothing and insignia shall be worn by the craft , " there being no mention whatever of coats , shirts , waistcoats , inexpressibles , [ and tho other portions of a man ' s apparel . As to the word " consistent , " let us take it in its every day sense , and I fancy we shall not be grievously in error . Fraternally yours , "Q . " '¦''' ¦ "i . . . . —

The Mother City Of American Masonry.

THE MOTHER CITY OF AMERICAN MASONRY .

BT BRO . JACOB NORTON . I HAVE been the Innocent cause of stirring up a difference of opinion between Boston and Philadelphia . A few years ago , Bro . MacCalla , of Philadelphia , asserted , in an article , that Boston was the mother of American Masonry . In my criticism thoreon I called his attention to a newspaper of 1732 , and to Franklin ' s letter of 1731 . Bro . MacCalla took the hint , but he has been running since then to the other extreme , claiming Philadelphia to bo tho legitimate mother .

I have more than once combated his notion . I have shown that no evidence exists that Pennsylvania had had a legally constituted Lodgo before Dermott sent his Deputation there in 1764 , establishing a Provincial Grand Lodge . Eecent unearthings by Bro . Hughan furnish , however , fresh material for the controversy . I shall , therefore , state clearly , one by one , the Philadelphia evidence , and will

follow each with my own remarks . 1 st . An article by Franklin , in tho Pennsylvania Gazette 1730 , states , " As there are several Freemasons' Lodges in this province , " & c , which proves the existence of Lodges there in 1730 . Remarks . —The article referred to-was a burlesque or satire on Masonry . Franklin , therefore , could not have been a Mason in 1730 ,

and he could not have known whether they were Masonic Lodges or secret societies of some other kind . 2 nd . The Pennsylvania Gazette , 26 th June 1732 , contains an account of a Grand Lodge , held on the 24 th previous , when William Allen was chosen G . M . and Benj . Franklin Junior Warden , & c . Remarks . —There is no evidence that the said Grand Lodge was

legally constituted . 3 rd . Daniel Cox was appointed Provincial G . M ., by the Duke of Norfolk , over New York , New Jersey and Pennsylvania ; the appointment wa 3 for two years , from 24 th June 1730 . Philadelphia then must have derived its Masonic authority from Cox's Deputation . Accordingly , at tho expiration of Cox's appointment , in 1732 , Bro .

Allen was chosen as his successor . Remarks . —Cox ' s Deputation enjoined him , or his Deputy , his sue cessors , or their Deputies , to communicate annually to the G . M . of England , or to his Deputy , the number of Lodges constituted in the Province , with tho names of the members of each Lodge , & c . But neither Cox , Allen , Franklin , or any other so-called G . M . of Pennsyl .

vania , had ever made the required communication , nor is there a particle of evidence thab Cox ever established , anywhere in America , a solitary Lodge . Tho Cox theory mn 3 t , thereforo , bo pronounced not proven . 4 th . —28 th November 1734 , B . Franklin , as Grand Master , petitioned Henry Price and tho G . L . in Boston , as follows : —

"We havo seen in the Boston prints an article of news from London , importing that , at a G . L . held there in August last , Mr . Price ' s Deputation and power was extended over all America . * * * Giving credit thereto , we think ib our duty to lay before your Lodge what we apprehend needful to bo done for us , in order to promote and strengthen the interest of Masonry in this Province ( which seems to want tho sanction of some authority frdm home , to

give the proceedings and determinations of our Lodge their dno weight ) , to wit , a Deputation or Charter granted by tho E . W . Mr . Price , by virtue of his commission from Britain , confirming tho Brethren in Pennsylvania in the privileges they now enjoy of holding annually their G . L ., choosing the G . M . and Wardens , " & c . In a letter attached to the above petition , Franklin stated , " I beg to recommend to you [ tho petition ] , and to inform you that some falsa and rebel Brethren , who aro foreigners ; being about to set w a dis ,,