Credibility Of Early American Masonic History.

gives it an air of extreme probability , if not of truth , and tho fact of the announcement being made in a newspaper of which the Junior Warden himself was proprietor ,

sufficiently justifies this view . From tho general knowledge handed down to us of Franklin ' s character , we are not justified in assuming that he wilfully permitted the publication of a statement which was untrue .

3 . Philadelphia derived its Masonic authority from Coxe , a theory which , in Bro . Norton ' s opinion , must bo pronounced as " not proven . " The basis of this opinion is simply that Bro . Coxe and the other Grand Masters of Pennsylvania did not comply with tho requirements of the

Deputation , and forward statements annually to the Grand Lodge o [ England as to the condition of their jurisdiction . Bnt the late English Grand Secretary Clark has himself declared that such requirement was only exceptionally observed . If , then , we are to condemn the Pennsylvanian

Grand Lodge proceedings on this ground , we must , in justice , condemn the proceedings of all the other Provincial Grand Lodges holding under tho Grand Lodge of England . Or , if failure in oue important requirement is to be allowed to vitiate tho proceedings o ? one American Prov . Grand

Lodge , to wit , that of Pennsylvania , the failure to observe other and equally important requirements in the case of another American Prov . Grand Lodge , to wit , that of Massachusetts , must likewise vitiate the proceedings of the

latter body . If , then , on Bro . Norton ' s own showing , the Boston G . Lodgo was highly irregular in its proceedings , why should we view more favourably its legality than that of the Philadelphia Grand Lodge ? What is sauce for the Philadelphian goose must be sauce for the Boston gander .

4 . Bro . Franklin ' s application to Price , in 1734 , for a charter on the ground thafc he ( Bro . Franklin ) considered "tho sanction of some authority from home necessary , " was made , in order to give " the proceedings ancl determinations of onr Lodge " their due weight . If , says Hro . Norton

triumphantly , the Philadelphia Lodge derived its authority from Coxe ' s Deputation , and if Franklin had strictly fulfilled tho terms of that Deputation , there would have been no need whatever for such application . But Bro . Norton overlooks the fact that such application was made on the

faith of a statement , published in " the Boston prints , " that Bro . Price had received an extension of his powers , and that ho had been deputed as P . G . M . " over all America . " It is only fair to suppose thafc Bro . Franklin imagined that this extension of Price ' s authority was , in

fact , a supersession of tho original deputation " granted to Bro . Cox , ancl that , under these circumstances , it was his duty to apply to Bro . Price for a Deputation or Charter

" confirming the Brethren in Pennsylvania in the privileges they ii ojv enjoy" ( the italics are our own ) " of holding annually their grand Lodge , & c , & c ., & c . " It mnst be evident from tho words wc have italicised that the

Philadelphia Grand Lodge already enjoyed the privilege of meeting annually and electing its Grand Master . Moreover , Franklin adds thafc the Grand Master of Pennsylvania will only vacate the chair " when the Grand Master of all America shall be in place , " that the granting of snob

petition will conduce " to the welfare , tho establishment , and tho reputation of Masonry in these parts , " and he supplements this with a request for " a copy o the R . W .

Grand Master ' s first Deputation " ( that is , to Bro . Price ) , " and of the instrument by which it appears to be enlarged as above mentioned . " The fncfc that Franklin makes no mention whatever of Coxe is immaterial . It is enoup-h that

he stands out for the privileges which the Philadel phia Lodge already enjoyed at the time of his application . As there is not a tittle of evidence anywhere to the effect that any deputation , charter , or patent was granted intermediately between Coxe ' s in June 1730 , and Price ' s in

April 1733 , and as ifc is in the last degree improbable that Franklin would apply to Price for confirmation of those privileges he had already derived from him , ifc is as nearly certain as anything- can be that the privileges of which Franklin speaks , can have been

derived from no other source than Coxe ' s Deputation . That Price granted the prayer of Franklin proves nothing , except that he was perhaps vainglorious of being regarded as the principal Masonic dignitary in North America . As we advance a few years in the history ol

English Masonry , which then included American Freemasonry , we note that it was a practice in those days foi successive Grand Masters to issue fresh patents of appointment to the same Provincial Grand Mastership . Whatever judgment we may fora as to Price ' s action ancl

Credibility Of Early American Masonic History.

statements , it is impossible to arrive at any other conclusion than that , acting under tho belief that Price had received from England an extension , or , if Bro . Norton prefers it , an original grant of full Masonic authority over the whole of America , Bro . Franklin was merely fulfilling his

duty , as defined by tho moro limited Deputation issued to Coxe , in applying to Price for a confirmation of the privileges already enjoyed Tinder that Deputation by tho Philadelphia Grand Lodge . We may add that , under these circumstances , Bro . Norton ' s assertion that , " upto

1734 , the Philadelphia organisation was bogus is utterly worthless . We have the grant of Coxe ' s Deputation by the Dnko of Norfolk , the original document being still preserved in tho archives of Grand Lodge England . That Deputation was o-ranted on 5 th Jnno 1730 on the strength of

an application made by Daniel Coxe and several other brethren , Free and Accepted Masons , residing and about to reside in the said Province of New York , New Jersey , and PennsyLania . Wo find in the Pennsylvania Gazette of December 3-8 1730 , published by Benjamin Franklin , who

shortly afterwards , if uot at the time , was himself a Mason , that it is stated as a reason for publishing a " burlesque or satire on Masonry" lately received from London , thafc

" there are several Lodges of Freemasons erected m this Province , and people have lately been much amused with conjectures concerning them . " Whether Franklin was or was not a Mason when he allowed this statement to

appear in his newspaper matters not ; he was a journalist , who for his own . sake would be anxious that what he published in the v / ay of statements of facts should be trustworthy , as well as that his news should be readable . But how does the publication of a " satire or burlesque on Masonry "

prove that Franklin " could not have leen a Mason at the time ? Why should a Mason be less amused than other people about a burlesque on Freemasonry ? If such a thing were sent to us , and we thought it would amuse our readers , we should certainly publish it . However , we have

already said this is a question of no importance . What really is important , and what Bro . Norton takes no account of , is that the Deputation and the newspaper afford concurrent testimony that in tho year 1730 there were Freemasons in Pennsylvania , and the newspaper , which is the

later of the two , declares that the Masons in the province were organized into Lodges— " As there are several Freemasons' Lodges in the jn'ovince . " At the time we reviewed the Dedication Memorial of the New Masonic Temple , Philadelphia , we remarked of the

evidence which Bro . Norton is now attacking , that " if not conclusive to every mind , " it was " eminently respectable . " We repeat this statement hero with this addition . We have several times had occasion to examine this evidence , and the more we examine it , the more it finds favour in our

eyes . Wc consider the Philadelphians have made out a very strong case of circumstantial evidence in favour of their views . Some links in tho chain may , perhaps , be wanting ; but the tenour of the whole is eminently respectable . If Bro . Norton , in his natural anxiety to learn the

truth , is about to appoint himself counsel for the appellant in the ease of Bostonian v . Philadelphian antiquity , which has already been for some time past before the highest

Masonic tribunals in America and elsewhere , it will be necessary he should brush up his logic , for he will havo some very knotty points to deal with . At all events , he will do well to bear in mind the old truism that " assertion

is not argument . ' At present he has done nothing more than affirm his views , and thus far , at least , has done his case more harm than good . The other points in his letter we shall deal with in a second article .

Masonic Portraits. (No. 44.)

MASONIC PORTRAITS . ( No . 44 . )

A WARDEN OF THE FENS , " The friend of man ; Who scanned his nature with a brother ' s eye , His weakness prompt to shade , to raise his aim , To teach tho finer movements of tho mind , Aud with tho moral beanty charm the heart . "

THE present literary tastes of the public are scarcely to be commended . They incline towards the light and frivolous , to what is quickly read and as quickly forgotten . Jonsideriug , mdeed , the voracity ot the general reader , we are almost surprised the bookseller does not dispose