Masonic Portraits. (No. 52.)

he might have demeaned himself . It is with him tho programme , the whole programme , and nothing less than the programme . So wo find his efforts directed , not only towards attaining , if possible , such distinctions as a worthy Freemason has the opportunity of winning , but likewise

towards carrying out that special task which every wellintentioned brother is ready to enter upon ; we mean , of course , the task of assisting our Charitable Institutions , and endeavouring to promote their welfare . In this respect our brother has shown that his acts are in complete

harmony with the teachings of Freemasonry . Tho good seed at his entrance into our society has fallen on good ground and brought forth abundantly . Though a Mason of twelve years' standing only , he has served the office of

Steward to one or other of our Festivals no less than halfa-dozen times . Thrice has he fulfilled this duty on behalf of tho Royal Masonic Benevolent Institution , of which he is also a Vice-President . Ho has acted twice in tho same

capacity of Steward for the Boys' School , and once for the Girls' School , while he has further constituted himself a Life Governor of both these Institutions . We are speaking within tho mark when we say that , by his admirable efforts on these several occasions he has been the means of putting

into the coffers of our three Charities the highly respectable sum of £ 600 ; ancl as he is yet in his prime , and possesses the same enthusiasm for whatever is Masonic , we doubt not but in the course of the next ten or twelve years—and may he live so long , and even longer to realise our prediction

!we repeat , we doubt not but he will exert himself as suecessfully in the same excellent cause . One thing is certain , he needs no pressing to induce him to undertake a labour of this kind , and his love of " thoroughness " is almost certain to carry him through successfully .

We have now almost completed our portrait . True , there is one evidence we have omitted , of the esteem in which he is held among his brethren . It is within the recollection of our readers that some short time since the Baroness Burdett Coutts presented three chairs to the

Lodge which bears her name , and that the presentation was made in the Lodge room . On this occasion , and in the arrangements preceding it , our esteemed brother took a very conspicuous part , and in order to recognise the exceeding merit of the services he then rendered , the

members of the Burdett Coutts Lodge presented him with a very handsome Secretary ' s jewel . Next in order to the consciousness of having rendered a service , comes the

gratification of feeling that such service is appreciated . Our brother , as we have said , needs no inducement to do his duty , but he is manly enough to feel deeply grateful when his fellows exhibit some token of their thankfulness for tho

manner in which he did it . However , not to dwell longer on this pleasing incident in a uniformly successful career , those who are best acquainted with onr hero are aware of the many admirable qualities which distinguish him , qualities which , in our humble fashion , we have made some attempt

to portray . They know how passionately fond he is of Masonry , how diligent in all his Masonic duties , how determined to have everything done well and completely , and how , in the hours of relaxation from labour , he loves to enjoy himself sensibly , and contribute to the enjoyment of

others . They , ancl we , all know this ; and , accordingly , in presenting this picture to our friends , we feel that however imperfectly we may have discharged our function , how inartistic soever may have been our treatment , the likeness

of this sterling fellow cannot be mistaken . We are pleased to have had this opportunity of expressing our own sense of his merits , and we trust he has still many years before him to continue the work he has begun so fortunately , and continued till now so satisfactorily .

The All Saints Lodge , No . 1716 , was consecrated on Friday , 21 st September , at the Town Hall , Poplar , by V . W . Bro . John Hervey , Grand Secretary , who was assisted by Bros . H . G . Buss , Assistant Grand Secretary , and James Terry , P . G . D . C . Herts , & c . Bro . William

Henry Farnfield was installed first W . M ., and he appointed Bros . John Dennis and White S . W . and J . W . respectively . Bro . Fenner P . M . No . 162 , is the Treasurer , while Bro . Bracebridge was appointed Secretary . There was a lam-e attendance of brethren .

Confidence Lodge of Instruction . —It has been ' determined to remove the Lodge to Bro . McCarthy ' s , the Greyhound Tavern , Milton-streefc , Cripplegate , where the members are invited to assemble on Wednesday the 10 th proximo , at 7 p . m .

Criticism Criticised.

CRITICISM CRITICISED .

BY BRO . JACOB NORTON . THE writer in the FREEMASON ' CHROXICXE tries hard , in the issues for 4 th and 11 th August , to confute my conclusions abont American Masonio mofchership ( see the issue for 28 th Jnly ) , and to prove the Philadelphia notions of her mothership . But , after wading through his two papers , I found that my friend had neither proved nor disproved auy thing ; all that he did was to lind fault with my

arrangement , style , & o . ; and where I said not proven , he tried to make out a may be . I , however , think that may be and not proven " is much of a muchness . " My Brother ' s first terrific onslaught is rather amusing . 1 stated r . hab an article by Franklin , in his paper of December 1730 says ,

that there wore then several Masonic Lodges in tho province , and that this newspaper statement was received as evidence that there wero several Lodges there in 1730 . To which . I replied : — " The article I referred to was a bnrlosqne , etc ., on Masonry . Franklin , therefore , could not have been a Mason in 1730 , and he could not have known whether they were Masonic Lodsres , or secret societies

of some other kind . " This , unfortunately for Bro . Norton ( replied my critic ) is ono of the most lamentable wm sequiturs it has been onr misfortune to read . Where , Bro . Norton , is your logic when you affirm , without the possibility of proof , that because Franklin published in 1730 a burlesque on Masonry , therefore he could not have been in 1730 wlxit we have , on Ms own evidence , he was in the month of June

1732 r Franklin belonged to the Masons in 17 S 2 , but he was not a Mason in 1730 , and now , my erring Brother , listen to reason . Bro . C . E . Meyer , of Philadelphia , first described to me the nature of the 1730 Franklin's article , when ho added " Franklin could not then havo been a Mason . " Bro . MacCalla afterwards sent me the said article ; I left in the Boston Temple for three weeks ; it was copied there , and

read by several of our prominent Masons , and all endorsed Bro . Meyer ' s opinion . And now , notwithstanding the sharp rebuke of my critic , I am not ashamed to re-affirm my opinion that Franklin was not a Mason in 1730 . But more of this anon . Franklin advertised himself as a G . J . W . in 1732 , and he styled himself G . M . in 1734 and my opponent imagines that tho character

of Franklin is sufficient to establish his allegations as facts . Upon that point 1 beg to differ . I know as much of Franklin ' s life and writings as my opponent . I respect and venerate Franklin for the good he has done for humanity . But , like other men , Franklin was not always immaculate . Shakspeare said , " One man in his time plays many parts . " Franklin also played many parts , and wo should

discriminate between young Franklin aud Franklin the sage . Franklin himself admits some of his indiscretions when he was young , and the trick he played to Keimer , his first Philadelphia employer , when he was twenty-two years of age , of first burlesquing and ridiculing Keimer's effort to start a newspaper , aud when by these means he had succeeded in minim ? Keimer , and the latter had to soil

out to Franklin the rights and machinery for a mere trifle , Franklin chuckled over the success of his trick . I suppose that this is called ono of " the tricks of trade , " but it was a trick , and Franklin certainly acted against the golden rule , "Do as yon would be done by . " This fact shows that Franklin went in for success , and that he was not over scrupulous as to tho means to be used to gain hia

point . When Franklin waa twenty-four years of age , or , in other words , in 1730 , for the sake of selling a fow more copies of his paper , he either invented , or got some other one to invent , a Masonic expose " Now if Franklin had then boon a Mason ho would not have published a true expose " , and if he had then been a Mason , he would not have palmed off on the community a false expose in order to bring the

brotherhood into contempt , & o , in either case , Franklin could not have been a Mason in 1730 , and hence he could not have known Masonic Lodges from other secret societies . I am , however , strongly inclined to believe that the " several Lodges " was a pure invention of Franklin . First ; In 1730 Boston was twice as old as Philadelphia . In 1639 it had already founded

the Harvard University ; aud the Boston City Hall has records of 1650 . In 1733 Masonry was introduced into Boston by Price . Whether he was really appointed G . M . by the Visconnt Montague ia immaterial . Suffice it to say that his statement was believed by tho ten Masons he found in Boston ; that Andrew Belcher , tho son of the Governor , acted as D . G . M . ; that iu 1736 , and on several other

occasions , Governor Belcher himself dined with the Masons , and walked or rode on St . John ' s clays in the Masonic processions , and yet Boston maintained but one Lodge up to 1750 . Now Philadel phia waa not settled before 1681 , and they want me to believe that in 1730 it already had several Masonic Lodges . And Second ; Henry Bell ' s letter claims that Bell was the

orio-i-nator of the first Philadelphia Lodge , in the autnmnof 1730 , aud that it was then a mere self-constituted affair , and Franklin says that on 3 rd December 1730 there were several Lodges there . Now both statements may be false , but both cannot be true , and which of the Philadelphia witnesses am I to believe ? Having shown that young Franklin waa not over scrupulous as to

means he used m carrying a point , I have a right , therefore , to ask for evidence with regard to Franklin ' s claim of being a G . M ., & c . Franklin did not pretend that his G . L . was authorised by Cos , or as to whether Cox had ever examined the Philadel phians as to their claimed Masonry . Price also knew nothing about a connection between Cos and Philadelphia , aud I really can see no reason

whatever that because Cox , who doubtless was initiated in England , and who , therefore , could not have known when he left America whether those who may havo claimed to be Masons were really so ( for the phrase " in behalf of himself and others , " is a mere technical term , and is therefore no evidence that the American Masons , if he knew any , desired him to petition for a Prov . G . L . ) , and because Franklin '