Credibility Of Early American Masonic History.

therefore , thoy could not have derived their authority from that instrument . We have it stated , in tho petition to Price of tho Pennsylvanian Grand Lodge , which is dated " Philadelphia , 28 th November 1734 , " and " signed , at the request of theLod « je . "byB . Franklin Grand Master , that at that time

tho Pennsylvanian brethren enjoyed the privilege " of holding annually their Grand Lodge , and choosing their Grand Master , Wardens , and other officers . " It does not follow that tlio choice of a Grand Master , & c , was made annually , though the Grand Lodge was held annually , yet the two may

have been made annual events , without any evidence being forthcoming that it was so . We have argued thus far on the interpretation of Rev . Bro . Titus , that " every other year " in the deputation means " biennially . " But while we admit that this is the most rational construction to put upon these

words , it may be the words " every other year " mean , " in every other year than the two , " for which Bro . Coxe ' s Deputation was , in the first instance , granted ; as though the English Grand Lodge authorities were arguing thus . We appoint Bro . Coxe to be Provincial G . M . for a period

of two years , but every other year after these have expired the brethren must elect a new Prov . G . M ., just as we in England annually elect a new Grand Master . We do not ask our readers to attach much importance to this suggestion . We do not think the question of annual or biennial

election has any serious bearing upon the matter in dispute . Weconsiderthe Coxe Deputation in 1730 , the announcement in the Pennsylvania Gazette in 1732 , and Franklin ' s signature as " G . M . " to the petition to Price , as establishing a continuous existence for four and a half years of the

Pennsylvania Grand Lodge . Franklin in no wise derogated from his position by his petition , for it was submitted in the belief that Price ' s enlarged Deputation had superseded that granted to Coxe , as indeed would happen in every case where a fresh Deputation was granted in connection with

the same Province . Ancl then the fact of Price granting the prayer of the petition , as stated by Bro . Norton , would give renewed legal existence to the Pennsylvanian Grand

Lodge for a further term . In this case , we gain an additional argument in favour of the continuous existence , at this period , of the Pennsylvanian G . L . out of the mouth of Bro . Norton himself .

6 . Bro . Bell ' s letter , dated 17 th November 1754 . Bro . Norton asks " who was Henry Bell ? " We refer him to Pennsylvanians for an answer . Bro . MacCalla speaks of the letter as being written on the foregoing elate " by Bro . Henry Bell , of Lancaster , Pa . to Bro . T . Cadwallader ,

M . D ., of Philadelphia , a member of the Provincial Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania in the year following , 1755 . " The letter , if genuine , confirms the establishment of a Lodge in Philadelphia under the Coxe Deputation . If it is not genuine , it simply affects not the evidence which has been built up .

7 . Lodge No . 79 on the roll of England in various lists of 1733-4-5-6 , and where it was held . The existence of this Lodge is wrapped in mystery . In three out of four lists we have before us at the moment , uamely in Rawlinson ' s as reprinted in the Voice of Masonry for August

1876 , with comments by Hughan , in Hughan ' s reprint of Pine ' s list 1734 , and in the Freemasons' Poclcet Companion , by W . Smith , a Freemason , " London : Printed for John Torbuck , in Clare-court , near Drury-lane ; and sold by the booksellers , and pamphlet shops , in town ancl country ,

1736 , " No . 79 is vacant . In the Dublin list , 1735 , reprinted in a London contemporary of ours in January last , it is given , as stated , as meeting at " the Hoop , in Waterstreet , Philadelphia , 1 st Monday , " being No . 116 , or

deducting the 37 Irish Lodges , No . 79 in the English list . We by no means accept the statement which Bro . Norton attributes to enthusiastic Philadelphian brethren , to the effect that No . 79 is the identical Lodse believed to have

been established in Philadel phia in Coxe ' s timo . This remains to be proved , and we trust it may be proved , not because we prefer Philadel phia to Massachusetts , but because it will show that the first American Deputation was not as unproductive of good as some would have us believe it was . Bro . Norton draws attention to the confusion of

statements as to this Lod ge , so far as regards its place of meeting . He says : "Franklin ' s Grand "" Lodge , in 1732 , met at the Sun Tavern , Water-street ; Bell has it that his Lodge met at the Tun Tavern , while the Dublin authority

has it neither Sun nor Tun , but Hoop , in Water-street . Now whether the printer confounded Sun with Tun is immaterial , but what has the Hoop to do with it ? " We read the matter in an . entirely different light . We say ;

Credibility Of Early American Masonic History.

hero are three important statements . The first is dated 26 th Junel 832 , and declares that on tho 24 th of the month , being St . John ' s Day , " a Grand Lodgo of the Ancient and Honourable Society of Free and Accepted Masons was held at the Sun Tavern in TFrt / cr-street . " In the second a

Henry Bell writes to a friend , in 1 / 54— " a party of us used to meet at the Tun Tavern , in TFfl / er-street . " The Dublin list of 1735 has No . 116—that is No . 79 English—meeting at the Hoop in Water-street , in Philadelphia . What is valuable in these statements is their entire concurrence as

to tho locality where the Lodge was held , namely , in TFWc / ' -street . If they had differed in this latter , we should hold their joint testimony to bo of less value , but as they differ only in the name of the public house , it is far less material . Bro . MacCalla quotes from Watson ' s

Annals of Philadelphia , to the effect that Pegg Mullen ' s Beef Steak House , on tho East Side of Water Street , at tho corner of Wilcox ' s Alley , was a noted public house , that " thero the Freemasons met , " and that this place was at the " South corner , or next the corner of Tun Alley . "

This Tun Alley ( now written Ton ) , ho tells us , is still in existence . All this strengthens the evidence on which the Philadelphians have based their case , and inclines ns always more and more favourably towards accepting it . We have seen but little , so far , in the way of argument on

behalf of his new theory by Bro . Norton . We are , indeed , somewhat disappointed as regards the first of his two letters . We think he might have arranged his materials more advantageously . We do not mean that he could have seriously damaged the case of Bro . MacCalla . New

and rebutting evidence is necessary for that , and Bro . Norton has not produced any . We mean that Bro . Norton , so far as his first letter is concerned , has not done the best that might have been done with the materials at his disposal . However , his second letter is more noteworthy .

We had intended to comment on it in the present article , but we have pursued this question , which , after all , is primarily of American interest , quite far enough , without being too wearisome . We shall , therefore , after a short respite , renew our consideration of Bro . Norton ' s theory .

Masonic Portraits. (No. 45.)

MASONIC PORTRAITS . ( No . 45 . )

A WARDEN OE " MARK . " " His years but young , but his experience old ; His head unmellow'd , but his judgment ripe ; And , in a word ( for far behind his worth

Come all the praises that I now bestow ) , He is complete in feature , and in mind , With all good grace to grace a gentleman . "

jVTO one can help admiring and respecting the enthu - -L ^ l siasm of a young beginner . It matters not what vocation he may have adopted . It may be his rank enables him to enter the political arena , in the hope that some day or other he may achieve distinction in one or other House

of Parliament as a statesman or an administrator . He may determine on devoting his energies to the promotion of scientific research , or he may aspire to take rank among our men of commerce or manufacture . We take no heed of the nature of the calling a man elects to follow , but of

the manner in which he enters upon it , and when we find him resolutely determined to succeed in his enterprise ; when we mark the earnestness with which he pursues his course , allowing no difficulty , no momentary defeat , to

turn him back ; when he has a modest confidence in his own powers , while at the same time he disdains not to take the advice of older and more experienced men , there is no limit to the respect and admiration we feel towards

him . No sense of envy is commin gled with these sentiments . His success is no more than is commensurate with the zeal and ability he has exhibited . We recognise unhesitatingly the truth of an old saying , but slightly altered to

meet the purpose of our argument , to the effect that " none but the brave deserve the fare , " which is the just reward of honest and honourable labour . We rejoice in his success , almost as though we had had a hand in promoting it ,

especially when it is obtained at the very outset of his career ; for then our pride in his achievements is intensified by the belief that he will continue as he has begun . We come to

look upon the earlier prizes he wins , not as " the be-all and end-all " of his career , but as an earnest of the still higher rewards which are in store for him . Of course , as people