Correspondence.

CORRESPONDENCE .

We do not hold ourselves responsible for the opinions of our Cor * respondents . All Letters must bear the name and address of the Writer , not necessarily for publication , but as a guarantee of good faith . We cannot undertake to return rejected communications .

No . 79 WAS UNDOUBTEDLY A LODGE IN PHILA DELPHIA .

To the Editor of the FREEJIASON ' S CHRONICLE . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —I have altered the heading to Bro . Norton ' s letter so as to make it accord with my views of the subject . I , however , quite believe that No . 79 was undoubtedly an English Locige , " as my friend Norton states , the fact being that , according to my reading of the evidence , botJi statements are correct , the

occupant of 79 of Philadelphia ( America ) being the first , closely followed by the London successor . We have . not much fresh evidence to submit as tcfthis question , henco I should have kept silence , awaiting more light , had not some of my friends wished me to reply to the comma . nication of Bro . Jacob Norton ( FREEJIASON ' S CHRONICLE , 1 st Nov . 1883 ) , and * 'INQUIRER ' S" friendly notice deserves attention ( 29 th

Dec . 1883 ) . Although that doughty champion pitches into me and others so unmercifully , it must not be supposed that we aro in any way un . friendly , for we aro the best of friends , only we cannot see " eye to eye" on this and some other matters . I have a copy of the List of Lodges Bro . Norton refers to of 1730 ,

whioh , though so-called , as Bro ; Gould points out in his invaluable " Four Old Lodges , " was really for 1730-2 . No . 79 at the " Hig h , gate , " London , was not on the list , as such , prior to 1731 , was not constituted until that year ( i . e . 1731 ) , ancl the payment of £ 2 2 s for the Warrant was not made until 21 st November 1732 . Now we have to do with the period before that time , for thero is the

possibility that a Lodge granted for Philadelphia in 1730 did not get on the Eoll nntil after all the English Lodges of that year ; just as the Lodge at Boston ( America ) comes after all the 1733 English Lodges , and immediately before those of 1734 , or as No . 213 , Carolina of 1755 , / olZows English Lodges of 1756 . I say possibility , but may add probability , because there is the

reference in the " Pocket Companion" of 1735 to a Locige in Philadelphia as No . 79 on the English Begister , which was held at the " Hoop in Water St . " lb seems to me much more likely that the compiler of this List had seen a Eoll of Lodges with the Philadelphia Lodge inserted , than that he wrongly filled up the blank with such particulars , for why should he give such information as to Philadel .

phia , if there were no grounds for the statement ? Then , again , we / bio to that Bro . Cox was appointed Prov . G . M . for " New York , New Jersey and Pennsylvania , " by the Duke of Norfolk G . M ., 5 th June 1730 , in response to an application made by Bro . Cox , " and by several other brethren , free and accepted Masons , residing or about to reside in the said Provinces , " so that some

think there is reason to suppose that No . 79 was the result of Bro , Cox ' s exertions on behalf of one part of his District , he probably having got the Warrant granted . The letter of 17 th November 1754 ( which Brother Norton says is " an imposition" ) , written by Dr . Thomas Cadwallader of Philadelphia , to my mind gives the explanation of the appearance , and almost sudden disappearance , of

this Lodge for the " City . of Brotherly Love "— " Once , in the fall of 1730 , we formed a design of obtaining a charter for a regular Lodge , and made application to the Grand Lodge of England for one , but before receiving it , we heard that Daniel Coxe , of New Jersey , had been appointed by that Grand Lodge as Provincial Grand Master of New York , New Jersey and Pennsylvania . We therefore made ap .

plication to him , and our request was granted . " * That there were many Freemasons in Philadelphia 1730-2 , and a Prov . Grand Master elected by the brethren in 1732 ( according to the requirements of the Patent of 1730 ) , is evident , and has been made quite clear by my friends , C . E . Meyer in the Grand Memorial Volume of the Masonic Temple , the Reprint of the Grand Lodge

Proceedings 1779 , & c . ; and Clifford P . MacCalla , M . A ., in his most interesting little volume , entitled " Philadelphia the Mother City of Freemasonry in America . " I know that all I have said is bufc " Historical Thread , " and requires careful attention to all the details , to carefully follow , & c . The matter is not yet ripe for settlement , but only for inferential

arguments , based upon what appears to be solid fact . There is no room for dogmatism on either side , for as it is now , neither can boast of the monopoly of the evidence , for it is not absolutely clear in my favour , and certainly it is not in Bro . Norton ' s . A Lodge warranted by a Prov . G . Master would , of course , be legal , of which there were many during the last century , several of

which never paid for their Constitutions ! Our lamented Bro . John Hervey ( G . Sec ) , in August 1870 , in a letter to Bro . Jacob Norton , declared that the " First Money received from a lodge in America was on the 8 th of March 1754 ; Royal Exchange , Borough of Norfolk , Virginia Constitntion , £ 2 2 s . " It is clear , therefore , thafc if Lodges in Philadelphia were warranted by the Prov . G . M ., and never paid any fees to tbe parent Grand Lodge ,

other Lodges acted in like manner elsewhere , only in some instances the latter managed to get and to keep on the Roll for many years . The Lodge chartered for London as No . 79 is omitted on the engraved list of 1734 ( reprinted by me since I wrote the article on No . 79 , Philadelphia ) , and though it was filled in ngain subsequently , the date ascribed to it in the Calendars generally to the " Union " was A . D . 1730 ! It was erased early this century . This is my last

Correspondence.

on the subject until more evidence is procurable and meanwhile I feel bound to congratulate Massachusetts on having such an able champion . Fraternally yours , W . J . HUGHAN . Torquay , 2 nd Jan . 1884 .

THE SECRETARY OF THE GIRLS' SCHOOL . To the Editor of the FREEMASONS' CHRONICLE . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —I know it is an invidious , and I feel that it is an almost useless , task for an individual to question the wisdom of a body corporate . I am also sensible that , as a result of the remarks I purpose making , I shall probably succeed in bringing , a hornet ' s nest about my devoted ears . But it seems to me that one

part of the proceedings of the recent General Committee of the Girls' School , as reported in your last week's issue , is a fair subject for public comment . We all know how mnch time and labour are spent in collecting subscriptions for our Institutions , and we are all , to a great extent , interested in the economical disbursement of the proceeds of such labour . I will , therefore , ask this one plain question—Is it consistent with a truly economical administration of

the funds of any charity , whioh is mainly supported by voluntary contributions , that any one of its officers , except under very special circumstances , should , for the second time within less than six years from his appointment , be awarded a substantial addition to hia salary ? Yet this was done last week in the case of the Secretary of the Girls' School , and no doubt every one who took part in the proceedings is perfectly convinced in hia own mind that he did a wise and prudent thing when he recorded his vote in favour of the

increase . There are many who think it is impossible for any one to criticise a course of policy without having some ulterior object of their own to serve . For the benefit of all such I will state that I have no such object . Again , there are those who will insist that any one writing as I do now , must have some personal feeling against Bro . Hedges .

So far is this from being the case , that I will venture to say no one enter , tains for him a greater sense of esteem and respect than I do . I believe he has done his duty thoroughly and conscientiously , and if praise of mine could do him any service , I would seek every possible opportunity of proclaiming his worth . My objection to the Committee ' s voto of Thursday last is made entirely apart from personal

considerations of any kind . I leave Bro . Hedges out of the question when I say , that to raise an officer's salary from £ 350 , whioh I believe was the amount at first awarded , to £ 500 , after a no more than five and a half years' service , is impolitic , because , in the first place , it is uncalled for , and in the second place , because it is likely to create tbe impression that the same ratio of increase will be

maintained in future years . I say it is uncalled for , because the duties of the office have not appreciably increased , either in extent or responsibility , since the appointment was made . They are now substantially what they were in 1878 , not lighter , but certainly not heavier ; while as regards tbe greater experience acquired by the officer , that had been recognised already once , and , in my humble judgment , very

handsomely , before the further recognition was voted last week . It must be remembered that this officer ' s salary , as now increased , will absorb one-third of the permanent income of the Institution ; and if the same degree of liberality is to be observed in the future as in the past , it will very speedily trench upon this source of income to the extent of one-half . Does the financial state of the School justify

this , when some four-fifths of its income are raised by the Voluntary Subscriptions of the Craft ? I have no intention of venturing into the field of comparisons , for 1 know in what bad odour they are held everywhere , but it will occur to most people to inquire why , if this policy of rapidly advancing

the Secretary's salary is adopted in the case of one of our Institutions , it shonld not be applied with equal effect , by which I mean propertionately , to the same officers of our other Institutions . As I am calling in question the conduct of au impersonal body , I have a right to maintain my own impersonality , and remain , Discreetly and fraternally yours , NEGOTII WON INEXPERS .

HOW THE MONEY GOES . To the Editor of the FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE . MR . EDITOR , —I am a strong advocate for paying a man well for his services . I do not approve of the system so much in vogue of abusing those who are better off than myself . I have no such envious feeling . I cannot help saying , however , that I think the General Committee of the Girls' School are a little bit too lavish in

their favours . I was not in favour of the course they took with regard to Miss Davis , and I am strongly inclined to think thafc they have gone to the extreme of generosity in the case of Bro . Hedges , the Secretary of the Royal Masonic Institution for Girls . His salary was £ 450 a-year , and is now £ 500 . When this jump of £ 50 per annum was made a regret was expressed that the salary of Bro .

Hedges was not made equal to the salaries of the Secretaries of the other two Institutions . Judging from a remark made thereupon , the time is not far distant when that happy time will arrive for Brother Hedges . "With all the merits o ? the latter , he would be a bold man who would compare them with those possessed by Bros . Binckes and

Terry . Apart from this question of merit , there is that of length of service , and this should be taken into consideration in adjusting salaries . Indeed it is one of the main factors in the total of estimation . That being so , I cannot see upon what grounds regret can be urged for the difference in salaries where the circumstances are dis .