G. Lodge Of The Commonwealth Of Massachusetts.

and an entertainment , consisting of music and character delineations , concluded the exercises of the evening . A Quarterly Committee of the Grand Lodge was held at the Masonic Temple , in the city of Boston , on Wednesday ,

9 th March , when there was a very large gathering , undei fche presidency of Bro . 11 . M . Field Deputy Grand Master , Grand Lodge having been opened in clue form ancl prayei offered by Bro . the Rev . C . H . Leonard , D . D ., the record .-

of previous Communications were read and approved . Certain bye-laws were presented and adopted . The Recording Grand Secretary announced the death of Bro . Jonas A . Marshall , M . D ., of Fitchburg , who served

the office of J . G . W . in 18-54 . It was resolved to prepare and present a memorial of the deceased for the records of Grand Lodge . The charter of Mount Holyoke Lodge , which perished in the fire that destroyed the Hall at South

Hadley Falls , in 1870 , was renewed . The sum of 500 dollars was p laced at the disposal of the Committee on Charity . Some time was spent in considering fche report ; of the Committee on Bye-laws , ancl the report of the

Commissioners on Trials , both of which were adopted . An interesting report was presented by Bro . R . Briggs on " Collection of Masonic Relics , " and a standing committee was appointed to collect , preserve , and display such

articles of Masonic interest as they might be ablo to gather , in the Masonic Temple , at Boston . After the transaction of some minor business , a vote of sympathy for tho Grand

Master , in his protracted illness , ancl an expression ot hope for his speedy recovery , was passed , which terminated the proceedings of Grand Lodge .

"Masonic Records " And Brother Jacob Norton.

"MASONIC RECORDS " AND BROTHER JACOB NORTON .

BY BRO . JOHN LANE . HAVIN G no desire to continue a controversy with Bro . Norton , I nevertheless feel ifc necessary , in reply to his last communication , to say that it is no answer whatever to my former articles , ancl I am very much afraid

Bro . Norton has not carefully read my " JNot . es on the Early Minute Book of the Premier Grand Lodge of England , " for if he had apprehended the full meaning of the facts they contain , he would scarcely have made such mistakes as his last article furnishes .

Bro . Norton , in introducing much extraneous and irrelevant matter , contributes very little towards a satisfactory settlement of the point at issue , whilst all I have attempted to do has been to chronicle facts ancl to draw from them the

most probable and reasonable inferences . Having read over and studied all Bro . Norton desired me to do , and notwithstanding his sweeping condemnation of my conclusions , I do not withdraw any statement I have written on the subject of No . 79 .

Bro . Norton s references to the engraved lists arc manifestly open to serious question . How is he enabled to say that " the second Engraved List did not appear until two years after the first ? " The earliest edition of the Engraved

List , known as that of 1723 ( because it bears that date on its first page ) , is in the Grand Lodge library , ancl is comprised in ^ i-ve pages . It contains a Lodge dated 27 th March 1724 " , and must therefore be a 1724 edition of the Lisfc . The

imprint ( " Printed for and Sold by Eman Bowen , Engraver in Aldersgate Street" ) , which appears at the foot of the fourth page , as well as the date " 1723 " , indicate a previous edition , so that there must have been on ; . late in 1723 ,

another in 1724 , ancl we know very well there were , at least , two editions in 1725 . Bro . Norton cannot surel y be in a position seriously ancl dogmaticall y to affirm even that the first Engraved list of which wo at present have any

knowledge was the first that was ever issued , much less that there were no Engraved Lists issued between 1725 and 1729 , or between 1729 and 1734 . I am confident

Bro . Norton cannot rely on either of the worthy brethren , with the weight of whose authority he sought to overwhelm me on 26 th March , to concur in his wild and improbable conjecture .

But leaving what may be doubtful for what is certain , I am bound , in the interests of truth ., to object entirely fo Bro . Norton ' s statement in relation fo the List of LocVes

( of 1731-2 ) in the Grand Lodge Minute Book , which , ho says , " contains nofc only the numbers and locations of the Lod ges , but also the names of the members of every Lodge , "

"Masonic Records " And Brother Jacob Norton.

and he adds , that he himself has " seen that record , " and that " the record was written between 1730 and 1732 , and contains one hundred and four Lodges . "

I have , I think , shown conclusively * that this List was compiled very lato in the year 1731 , receiving additions from time to time down to tho end of 1732 , and that it

contains only 102 Lodges and not 104 . There are two blanks , to which I will refer presently . Now , history is being built up largely from statements such as Bro . Norton uses , ancl when he tells us ho has actually seen the record

which ( as he alleges ) contains the names of the members of every Lodge , of course he mig ht reasonably expect to bo believed . Unfortunately , Bro . Norton ' s statement is only about half true , for the names of the members are attached

to only 54 of the Lodges out of the total number of 102 . Now , if Bro . Norton ' s " statements of facts "—facts that can be tested and examined—are so incorrect and unreliable , what may we expect his conclusions and inferences to be ?

To his question as to when the Grand Lodgo of England ever granted two charters with one and the same number , I beg to rrfer Bro . Norton to the Preface to my " Masonic Records , " pp . xviii , xix and xx .

Tho two blanks in the 1731-2 Lisfc do not help Bro . Norton ' s case at all , but are strong evidence in corroboration of the inference I drew , that there was a Lodge ( I do

not say where it was located ) , having the number 79 , previous to that which subsequently appeared at tho " Castle in Higho-ato . "

The Grand Lodge records contain all fche evidence I know of that will assist in a settlement of this question . No . 42 , warranted 25 th May 1725 , at " King Henry 8 th ' s Head , St . Andrews Street , near ye Seven Dials , " appears

only in the Grand Lodge Minutes for three meetings , m June , November , and December 1728 . After that period it never attended , and it is out of the Lists in 1731-1733 . A Lodge , however , appears on 13 th December 1733 , at the

" Salutation , Billingsgate , " which bore the same number 42 , no less than five years after the period when the original Lodge ceased to be represented . No . 67 , again , is still more conclusive . Warranted on 16 th April 1730 , at "Dick'sCoffee

House , Gravel Street , Hatton Garden , " it attended Grand Lodge for the last time on 28 th August in the same year . Then ifc ceases , its existence having been of very short duration , and was removed from the Lists . Late , however , in

1738 ( I give this on the authority of Anderson , its first attendance at Grand Lodge being 31 st January 1739 ) , a Lodge appears at the " Castle at St . Giles ' s , " with the

same number 67 , an interval of eight years having elapsed since the attendance of the original Lodge . On Brother Norton s own showing the old Lodge must have been erased , by virtue of the Grand Lodge Law of 24 fch February 1735 .

I consequentl y draw a very plain common-sense inference , viz ., that the vacant No . 79 , as well as the vacant Nos . 42 and 67 , were granted or assigned to , or were taken with the consent of Grand Lodge by , other brethren who united

to form entirely new Lodges , altogether separate and distinct from the Lodges which previously bore the same numbers , and I commend this view of the subject to Bro . Norton ' s careful consideration .

In closing these remarks , I should add that during the printing of the early sheets of my " Masonic Records , " I was unable to make such a minute and detailed analysis

of the early London Lodges as I have more recently done , otherwise I should have distinguished the Lodges Nos . 42 and 67 , above referred to , as 42 a , 42 b , 67 a and 67 b respectively , in a manner similar to that of No . 79 .

I must thank you for allowing me to trespass so much on your space , and Bro . Norton will be good enough to understand that , so far as I am concerned , the discussion of this subject is ended .