Our Brethren In Montreal.

inimical to the true progress of Freemasonry , as this indulgence in the vanity and luxury of allocution , anathemata , excommunications and boycotting , all put

forth , we may observe , with great violence of language , and sadl y characterised by an entire absence of the courtesy of gentlemen , and of the amenities of Freemasons . We confess to be a little startled to find that in the

United States , where our brethren are so acute as to the weight of Masonic precedence , and the bearing of Masonic principles , the force and meaning of honourable concordats , where above all they are so attached to in their

own Lodges , they should be insensible in any measure to the firmness and courage , and true-hearted sympathy , with which that intelligent and well-educated and kindhearted little band of brothers , has preferred to stand

by the memories and traditions of " auld lang syne / havo refused to desert , under any pretence whatever , whether seduced b y allurements , or intimidated by threats , the time-honoured banner and jurisdiction of the Grand

Lodge of England . Wo might say a great deal more , but think it well

to pause . We may perhaps return to the subject at some other convenient season .

A Few More Hints To Bro. Lane.

A FEW MORE HINTS TO BRO . LANE .

BY BRO . JACOB NORTON . BRO . LANE seems to be annoyed at my finding fault with his dictum that Lodge No . 79 " was warranted for America . " I beg , however , to remind him that if it had not been for a succession of fault-finders , since man made his appearance on this globe , we should have all been

to-day in a state of primitive savagedom . Without going very far back , it is well known that for many centuries European Christians had unbounded faith in the Pope ' s high discrimination and honest intentions , and hence they

believed everything tbe Pope said . Luther , however , while not doubting the Pope ' s honest intentions , had some doubts about his discrimination , and , therefore , found fault

"With some dogmas . The mode of argument pursued b y his opponent at last impelled Luther to disbelieve even in the Pope ' s honest intentions .

Later on , Galileo found fault with the Pope ' s belief that the world stood still , and here , again , the fault-finder was right . Freemasonry , for many years , had also its Pope- * , in whom the Fraternity had an unbounded faith ,

and as long HS that faith continued peace prevailed among our Masonic writers ; each could write witb impunity any kind of nonsense he pleased , and others copied it with high praise , Masonic courtesy—that is , "you tickle me

and T tickle you , " was a Masonic rule , and fault-finding was tln-n m : known . It was then the golden age for Ma-o i < r dtvamers and humbugs ; hi gh degrees were in ; . uhi ( -Mirvd wholesale , and Masonic Popedom ruled

upe *** . At la > r , somo German Masons began to find an-: ; yr duall y a class of fault-finders successively ft . - ; , ' -a I * in HI gland arid in America . In short , the Masonic w .-fld beirau to move ; the old orthodox luminaries violentl y

denounced the modem sceptics ; abuse , worthy of Billingsgate , was hurled at the new school , * and publishers of Masonic papers refused contributions from the more advanced writers , for fear of boycotting . Since then ,

however , though the old Masonic superstitions are not totall y abolished , yet our dreamers find it rather difficult to increase the stock of Masonic nonsense , and an independent thinker is now , to a great extent , allowed to ask questions

and t-i criu ise t . t-ories . In . short , the liberty of the Masonic press has been extended ; henceforth , the best written Masonic hook does not confer upon its author a licence to pervert even a single Masonio fact b y his mere dictum . Bro . Lane must , therefore , make up his mind

A Few More Hints To Bro. Lane.

to submit graciously to rational criticism , and to allow himself to be questioned , the same as authors in other departments of literature . Now tho Philadelphia question has been hotly discussed

on both sides of the Atlantic since 1874 . All the facts brought to light since then convince me more and more that the Henry Bell Letter proved nothing , and the statement in the Dublin 1735 Pocket Companion , that

No . 79 was located in Philadelphia , was a blunder . I dig . cussed the said question with Bros . Hughan and Woodford in England , and opposed everywhere I could the spread of that notion in America . I have already shown that

the Grand Lodge at Washington did not believe in the Philadelphia Mothership , nor did the Orator of the Centennial believe in it at New Jersey . In short , I am satisfied that neither Bro . Woodford nor Bro . Hughan

believe now in the connection of Coxe with Philadelphian Masonry . And if Bros . Brennan and "Philadel phos " are rightly informed , it seems that my friend Bro . MacCalla has " changed front" too . Now , had I known Brother Gould ' s opinion upon the Philadelphia question when I

first saw Bro . Lane ' s book , I should probably have refrained from calling attention to Bro . Lane ' s notion about No . 79 , but being then unacquainted with Bro . Gould ' s opinion , I asked Bro . Lane , aa politely as I could , as to what information he was in possession of about the early history of Pennsylvania Masonry , and especiall y as to what he knew about No . 79 ? Thereupon he startled me with information , viz ., that within four years

there were three charters issued by the Grand Lodge , and each was No . 79 . To this notion I could not accede , which of course gave additional offence to my wonld-be historic dictator .

Bro . Lane ' s method of argument is exceedingly unfair ; his chief aim seems to be to throw dust ( as it were ) into the eyes of his readers , in order to divert their attention from the fact of his inability to prove his three

seventyniner theory . So , after making professions about his honesty of intentions , and of his "care and discrimination , " he next discbarges a battery of accusations against my veracity , my untrustworthiness , & c . A slight

mistake , which did not tend in the least to influence the question at issue , is magnified by him into an intentional falsehood . For instance , Anderson , in his 1738 Lodge List , appended to No . 79 the year 1731 . Pine , in hia 1740

Lodge List , gave 1730 as the year of the origin of No . 79 , but in Smith ' s Pocket Companion of 1735 , No . 79 , had no year assigned at all . Now , in describing that Lodge List from memory , I placed 1730 on the No . 79 line . Now , Bro .

Lane ' s article in this paper , of 3 rd September , covers nearly four columns , and nearly a whole column he devotes to the above mistake of mine . Such mistakes he designates as " glaring misstatements , " and very seriously cautions his

readers about my untrustworthiness . He , however , forgets to notice , that when in a subsequent paper I copied from a Lodge List the group of eight constituted in 1731 that I did not then append any time to the ori gin of No . 79 .

Now , the most amusing part of his great splurge of indignation , against my " glaring mistatements , " is , that the infallible Brother Lane himself made the very same blunder in his book ; the onl y difference was , I wrote 1730 at the end of the line , while he

wrote 1731 at the side of No . 79 . But this is not all ; Brother Lane asserts that in 1733 a new Lodge was constituted as No . 42 , belonging to a Lodge that had been extinct for five years , and that in 1738 another Lodge was constituted as No . 67 , which number belonged to a Lodge

that bad been extinct since 1730 ; but he had not a particle of evidence to prove his assertion about No . 42 , while his own book shows that No . 67 was alive in 1733 , 1734 ,

1735 , and 1736 ; it was erased from the Lodge list in 1737 , but it met again at its old quarters in 1738 ; still again , on page 36 of Bro . Lane ' s book , referring to the Wolverhampton Lodge , No . 77 , he says : —

" Paid £ 2 2 s to procure the warrant No . 77 , following the procedure of the Ancients " ( the italicising is mine ) . Now if Bro . Lane had positively believed that the Grand Lodge ( Moderns ) gave away old numbers of extinct Lodges

to entire new organisations in 1732 , 1733 , 1735 , and 1768 , how then could the same Grand Lodge in 1768 have followed "the procedure of the Ancients , " when she herself did so before the Ancients existed ? But , I come to my last offence , viz .: I did not believe that the Grand Lodge of England ( Moderns ) had ever