The Philadelphia Masonic "Mother" Bubble.

THE PHILADELPHIA MASONIC " MOTHER" BUBBLE .

BY BROTHER JACOB NORTON . IT is proverbial that a Philadelphia lawyer cannot easily bs pnzzled , hence I can account as to why onr good brother MacCalla , of Philadelphia , who there adorns the legal profession , was never puzzled with auy doubts about

Philadelphia being the legitimate mother of American Masonry . His peculiar mode of reasoning , however , not only convinced the Pennsylvanians , that Daniel Coxe established Masonry in Philadelphia in 1731 ; not only convinced Dr .

Mackey , who indeed expressed regret , in 1874 , thafc Brother MacCalla ' s discoveries were nofc made before the publicacafcion of his Cyclopcedia ; he not only took captive some of onr oratorical Grand Masters , and the American Masonic Press generally , bnt our English Brothers Hnghan , Woodford and others also rushed into the melee , and zealously acknowledged and upheld Brother MacCalla ' s discovery as an important event . Brother Woodford , in his Cyclopcedia

in 1878 said : — " The early history of Freemasonry in America has lately had to be re . written , consequent upon the discovery of documents which prove

that Philadelphia Pennsylvania is , as Brother Hnghau styles it , ' the premier Masonio City , ' and Pennsylvania ' the first Provincial Grand Lodge in America , ' instead of Boston , Massachusetts , as formerly stated . " & c .

A writer in the FREEMASON ' CHRONICLE also gave ns more than one article in behalf of Philadelphia Masonic

Premiership . Time , however , has served to change public opinion , and ifc is curious to see how one by one yield , sooner or later , fco reason and common sense . Here in America , outside of Pennsylvania , I know nofc whether

even one intelligent Mason believes now in the Philadelphia mother thory ; in England , the writer in this Journal , previously referred to , showed decided symptoms

of change of opinion on the question ; and in 1881 , when I met Brother Woodford , in company with Brother Gould , in London , both of these distinguished brethren confessed the Philadelphia " Mother theory" was a failure ; indeed , Brother Gould had already manifested that opinion in the

FREEMASON ' CHRONICLE , and I suppose Bro . Woodford only refrained from expressing his opinion in print on account of his friendship to Brother Hughan . After reading an article in the Freemason of 15 th January , on the Philadelphia question , I expected to see in the next issue a sledge hammer remonstrance to it from Brother Hughan . However , here is an extract : —

" We anticipate that the claim made by Brother Meyer , of Philadelphia , respecting the Premier Masonic City in America , will not be generally received either in that country or with us , for we are not aware tbat 'ic is established beyond doubt that Daniel Coxe authorised the establishment of a Lodge in Philadelphia . ' The

evidence is not quite satisfactory , depending as it does on the' Bell Letter , ' which has not yet been accepted as reliable . Unfortunately , this letter has been lost , and cannot now be produced as a witness [ Query , when ? and by whom was the Bell Letter lost ?] We have no reason to doubt the genuineness of the epistle , bub the accuracy of

Bell's assertion may fairly be questioned , when there is not a scrap of information in existence respecting Coxe's connection with tbe old St . John ' s Lodge referred to . We know [ so do I ] that Brother Hnghan has done his best to clear up the difficulty , and so have other well known students of the Craft . But we entirely share Brother

Gould s view of the subject , so far as respects the present indefinite character of fche evidence submitted ; and whilst cheerfully acknowledging thafc the notable No . 79 [ English Register ] may have been chartered for Philadelphia , though never used , we are nofc in a position just now to decide fche matter authoritatively one way or the other . "

Now I confess thafc I cannot see a particle of evidence in the Dublin Pocket Companion of 1735 to justify the supposition that a charter " may have been sent" to Philadelphia in 1731 . But yet the way it is here expressed is a

that I was even more curious to learn Bro . MacCalla ' s opinion about it . I thought , however , that whileJlBro .

decided improvement on Brother Lane ' s statement ; for according to the Freemason it is very doubtful whether the charter was sent at all to Philadelphia . But if it was ever

sent , it is very certain that it was never used , but Bro . Lane seems to be positive that the charter was sent from England , and his doubt rests as to whether it was used by the Philadelphians or not .

I have already intimated that I was curious to know what my good Bro . Hughan would say in response to the Freemason ' s editorial of 15 th January , and I must add

The Philadelphia Masonic "Mother" Bubble.

Hughan might perhaps be satisfied with the soothing syrup of " may have been , " generously offered by the editor of the Freemason , as a kind of peace offering or compromise , yet it seemed to me that to my ardent Philadelphia opponent

who , through thick and thin , for near thirteen years persistently maintained that Philadelphia was " undoubtedly " the legitimate mother of American Masonry , the applied phrase " may havo been " must therefore have sounded

grossly outrageous ; hence , I was prepared for a four column outburst of indignation in the next issue of the Keystone , together with a notice " To be continued . " I expected to read Bro . Calla ' s appeal to the opinions upon

the question at issue of the learned Dr . Mackey , of numerous American Masonic Grand Masters and Masonic editors , and of the most distinguished English Masonic writers , viz ., Bros . Woodford , Hughan , & c . I expected to see a re-hash

for the fiftieth time at least , of the whole series of his arguments , with some new additions . I imagined seeing the paper begin with : — "May have been ! Indeed ! Why ! did nofc Benjamin

Franklin state , in December 1730 , that there were several Lodges in the Province ? " Bro . Franklin ' s statement is undoubtedly trne , because nobody has ever contradicted it Again , Coxe undoubtedly got a Deputation , dated 24 th

June 1730 , from the Grand Master of England . " Now Coxe , under this Deputation , undoubtedly—as Provincial G . M . of New York , New Jersey , and Pennsylvania—warranted the first Lodges in Philadelphia in the same year in which

the Deputation was granted , and these Lodges were the ones which Franklin ' s paper of December 1730 asserts were then in existence , " & c . ( See Masonic Magazine , vol . 2 , p 9 . )

Again , " Coxe visited the G . L . of England 29 th January 1731 , and was greeted as Provincial G . M . of North America . " [ The last argument is Bro . C . E . Meyer ' s . ]

Next would come the " Bell Letter , " the Dublin Pocket Companion of 1735 , with the additional inference drawn from Bro . Lane ' s book , viz ., his unqualified admission that a Lodge was " warranted for America . " " True , " Bro . Lane

adds , " but probably warrant never used . " This , however , our learned Philadelphia Brother puts aside , as in his opinion it was undoubtedly used . Besides which , his late discovered Philadelphia Lodge record or ledger of 1731

would itself be shown to be overwhelming proof that there is no " may have been " about it . Yes , all this and a great deal more I was prepared to read in the next issue of the Keystone . I was therefore agreeably surprised when the

said issue of the London Freemason and the Philadelphia Keystone reached me to find that neither the English nor the American champions of the Philadelphia mother theory mentioned a word against the anti Philadelphian editorial

in the Freemason of 15 th January . The inference therefore is a virtual confession on the part of my esteemed opponents that the Philadelphian Mother Masonry theory can no longer be rationally maintained . In short our Philadelphia lawyer is puzzled at last . BOSTON , U . S ., 9 th February 1887 .

Mark Masonry.

MARK MASONRY .

BRUNSWICK LODGE . No . 48 .

A REGULAR meeting of this Lodge was held at the Masonic Hall , Hobart-street , Stonehouse , on Wednesday , 10 th ultimo , to instal Bro . C . Marshall J . W ., Past Grand Organist , aa Worshipful Master for the ensuing year . The ceremony of installation was impressively rendered by Bro . F . Binckes Grand Secretary of England . Among the Installed Masters present were Bros . T . W .

Lemon P . M . 55 P . G . Chaplain England P . P . G . Chaplain Devon , P . Crouch P . M . 76 G . J . D . England P . G . A . Secretary , J . H . Stevens P . M . 48 P . P . G . S . O ., R . Lose P . M . 48 P . P . G . S . O ., H . Millar P . M . 76 P . P . G . D . C , J . Lavers P . M . 76 P . P . G . A . D . C , and J . Bartlett P . M . 48 . The board of Installed Masters being closed , the Officers were

invested , as follow : —Bros . R . Loso jan . I . P . M ., G . Ellery S . W ., F . Webber J . W ., F . Price Treasurer , S . Davis Secretary , S . Chubb M . O ., T . Worledge S . O ., T . Geach J . O ., A . R ; Lethbridge P . M .

P . P . G . S . D . Chaplain , C . E . Wingate Registrar of Marks , W . H . Williams S . D ., W . Austin J . D ., C . P . Sutton I . G , aud James Bartlett P . M . Tyler . Among the Visitors were Bros . Brickwood 16 , H . C T . Tucker 169 , and Curno .

Ad00403

£ 20 » - "T ° BAQCOirisi 3 COMMENCING . —An illustrated guide , regd . ( 13 G pp ) , "How to Open Kespectably from £ 20 to JE 2000 . " 3 Stamps . H . MYBBS & Co ., Cigar and Tobacco Merchants , 107 to ill Euston Road , London "Wholesttie only , Telephone No . 7641 . General Shopfitters . Estimates free .