" Masonic Records " And Brother Jacob Norton.

" MASONIC RECORDS " AND BROTHER JACOB NORTON .

CONCLUDING ARTICLE . BY BRO . JNO . LANE .

" TN all labour there is profit ; " so wrote the wise and J _ Royal Solomon , but the labourer does not always obtain the reward of his toil . It often happens that one BOWS and another reaps . But the king ' s wise proverb

has received confirmation now that Bro . Norton has opened his eyes to see the light , and consequently I already realise Borne of that reward which sweetens labour , for my endeavour to convince our Brother that my statements

were founded on truth has had some success . We may reasonably hope that further thought and closer examination will result in a yet clearer perception of the facts , and of the natural and legitimate inferences to be drawn from them ; and , if so , my labour will not have been

without reward . I wish , however , that Bro . Norton would clearly understand that in no way whatever do I claim any infallibility . I am too conscious of the many difficulties inseparable from the subject under discussion , as well as of my own

shortcomings , to venture on such an injudicious course ; and whilst having had occasion to point out the mistakes of others , I have never concealed from myself the possibility of others exercising a similar duty in regard to

myself . Bat in the instances cited in the FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE , of 1 st October , Bro . Norton does me an injustice , his statement being alike ungenerous and unfair .

When I found that possibly some persons might be misled by the date " 1731 " in my " Masonic Records , " I at once wrote to the Freemason ( 15 th January 1887 ) explaining that such date " did not appear in the Dublin List of

1735 , " and this I repeated in the CHRONICLE of 16 th July last , adding there that I adhered to that date still , and this I reiterate to-day as being the year of origin of the first No . 79 .

In relation to Bro . Norton ' s italicised quotation , in which he makes me say that the Lodge No . 77 " paid £ 2 2 s to procure the Warrant No . 77 , following the procedure of the Ancients , " I prefer to be quoted correctly ; my statement is , " paid £ 2 2 s to purchase the Vacant No . 77 , in 1768 , following the procedure of the Ancients . " The

Warrant was not sold or purchased , but only the position and number of the extinct Lodge ; and it should be plain , even to Bro . Norton , that my statement could only mean the regular , recognised and general course of procedure ,

and not an exceptional and , perhaps somewhat irregular , mode of action . Now , after the first and only closing up of their numbers , on 27 th December 1752 , it was the invariable and uniform practice of the Ancients to issue

the numbers of old Warrants , either to existing or to such new Lodges as might require them , on payment of a sum of money ; and this I call their " procedure . " On the other hand , such was not the practice of the Moderns

whose modus operandi was to cancel the Warrants that had ceased to exist or were erased , and periodically to close up the numbers , and this I designate their mode of procedure ; and , although there were exceptions to this

rule , which have been pointed out over and over again , yet they cannot , by any reasonable use of language , be made to indicate that such exceptional treatment was general , or

entitled to be considered the " procedure " of the Modern Grand Lodge . It is refreshing , however , now to find Bro . Norton practically admitting that the evidences I have adduced have convinced him that what in the earlier

part of the year he alleged the Grand Lodge never did , and which he stated he could not see and did not believe , are now become clear to his mind , and are accepted as

veritable facts . So , recognising gratefully Bro . Norton ' s admission of his mistakes , and his implied appreciation of the value of the new light and knowledge , I pass on to his concluding question .

" The question is , how does Bro . Lane know that No . 79 ( the third Lodge constituted in 1731 , as attested by an original record of that year in Freemasons' Hall ) was not constituted in 1731 at the Castle in Highgate ?"

Now at the outset , and to avoid any repetition of the unfounded charge of attempting " to throw dust ( as it were ) into the eyes " of my readers , which I emphatically repudiate , let me say that I have studied this question

" Masonic Records " And Brother Jacob Norton.

apart from any personal predilection for one side or the other in the " American Early Masonry " controversy . In dealing with Bro . Norton ' s quostion , I have to assume

that his allusion to an " original record " of 1731 is to the Manuscript " List of Members of all the Regular Lodges as they were returned in the year 1730 , " and which are copied in the Grand Lodge Minute Book . Elsewhere

( Freemason , 19 th March 1887 ) , as Bro . Norton knows , I

have dealt fully and at some length with this list , and can only here reiterate my conclusion , based on the evidence of the list itself , that " the List was compiled very late in the year 1731 , and that it received additions from time to time , doivn to the end of 1732 . " This being so , the List cannot be relied on at all for any satisfactory solution of the question

for although the List undoubtedly contains the entry at No . 79 , " Castle in Highgate , " yet , from the evidence I have elsewhere furnished , it is very probable that such

entry was not made until 1732 . If Bro . Norton would come over and examine carefully the List and Records , I feel confident he would be convinced that the List , so entered in the Minute Book ( and

which has been erroneously termed a List of 1730-32 ) is a transcript of another list which had been commenced in 1731 ( not 1730 ) , when Lord Lovell was Grand Master , and which after repeated alterations and additions was

finally copied into the blank leaves of the old Minute Book then discarded for the new " Large Folio Book " presented

by the Duke of Norfolk , and whioh new Minute Book commences in May 1731 . And having shown , in the Freemason referred to , that the evidence supplied by the List itself fully justifies the conclusion I arrived at , I pass on to the remainder of Bro . Norton ' s query .

The question he propounds ( omitting the statement in parenthesis ) is , " How do I know that No . 79 was not constituted in 1731 at the Castle in Highgate ? " To this I reply , that absolute knowledge on that subject is , from the paucity of evidence , practically unattainable . We

must therefore make the best use of that which is available . In the FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE of 19 th February last , I gave at some length my reasons for believing the Lodge

at the Castle in Highgate to have been constituted in 1732 , and to make my argument clear I repeat one or two statements in reference to No . 79 , viz .:

" ( A ) That the Lodge , wherever it may have been located , that was originally warranted in 1731 as No . 79 , for some cause or other disappeared from the List altogether in 1732 .

" ( B ) That late in the year 1732 , the old number being blank , a new Lodge waa constituted at the Castle in Highgate , to which the original No . 79 was assigned , and which I distinguish as 796 . "

I based these inferences on the fact that the payment for the Warrant of No . 79 by the Lodge at the Castle in Highgate , was not made until 21 st November 1732 , which is the date of its first and only appearance in the List or in

the Grand Lodge Minutes . To say that a London Lodge would have been permitted to have a warrant not paid for , and without making any attendance at Grand Lodge , for about a year and a half , is to assume more than is shown by

the facts in relation to other Lodges . There is no instance on record , so far as I am aware , to justify such a conclusion . Usually , the Warrants were paid for at the time of their date or within a brief period thereafter . I am , of course ,

not unaware that in the case of No . 71 , dated 26 th January 1730 , the Warrant was not paid for until 29 th January 1731 , and in the case of No . 77 , dated 11 th January 1731 , the Warrant was not paid for until 3 rd December in the

same year , but in both these instances the Lodges are registered as having attended Grand Lodge during the several intervals , —in the first case on 28 th August and 15 th December 1730 , as well as on the 29 th January 1731 ,

its day of payment ; and in the second case on 29 th January and 17 th March 1731 , as well as on the 3 rd December in the same year , when it paid for its Constitution . Now , it is a singular fact that in the case of No . 79 , " Castle

at Highgate , " there is no mention of it anywhere until the 21 st November 1732 , when it attended Grand Lodge and paid for its Warrant , and like a meteor which appears for a brief season , and then vanishes from our sight , so we

never afterwards find any trace or mention whatever of this Lodge No . 79 , at the Castle in Highgate . It had had its day ; it may or may not have served its purpose , but it certainly ceased to exist . With a desire , before I leave this subject , to place before Bro . Norton and your readers generally any inforniat lon