Ar00200

Grand Lodge more legal than the Lodge composed of " foreigners , rebels , " Ac , who were making Masons for a bowl of punch in Philadel p hia in 1734 . There is still another question to which I must call

attention , viz ., is there any evidence that Benjamin Franklin was aware , in the month of April 1739 , about Coxe ' s appointment in 1730 as Provincial Grand Master for any part of America ? I asked Brother McCalla

the question , whether thero is any evidence that any man in America knew about Coxe ' s appointment while Coxe was alive ? and he frankly answered in the negative . Some years ago I searched through Spark ' s Life of

Franklin , but did not find the name of Daniel Coxe therein . Franklin ' s two letters to Henry Price , in 1734 , do not indicate his knowledge of the existence of such a

personage as Daniel Coxe , and Franklin ' s obituary notice of Coxe ' s demise furnishes no hint about Coxe ' s Masonry : thus the Pennsylvania Gazette of 26 th April 1739 contains the following brief item , written by Franklin : —

"Yesterday morning died , at Trenton , the Hon . Daniel Coxe , Esq ., one of the Justices of the Supreme Court of the Province of New Jersey . "

Bro . Gould , howover , maintains that Franklin could not have been ignorant , either in 1739 , or even in 1734 , about Coxe ' s Masonry . He reasons mos curiously , as follows : —

" Yet ( says Bro . Gould ) if we put on one side the letters of 1734 , and the newspaper entry of 1739 , the remaining evidence affords good reason for supposing that Franklin was aware of Coxe ' s appointment in the former year [ 1734 ] , and still stron er ground for believing that it could not have been absent from hi knowledge in the latter " [ 1739 ] .

" The Proceedings of the Grand Lodge of England ( continues Bro . Gould ) were circulated far and wide , by the newspapers and in private letters , as well as by oral communication . But passing over the earlier date there is scarcely any room to doubt that in 1739

Franklin must have read , or at the very least have had his attention called to the positive statement in the Constitution of 1738 , that Coxe was appointed Provincial Grand Master during tho administration of the Duke of Norfolk . "

Bro . Gould seems to be under an impression that in 1739 they had railroads and steamboats , and daily mails across the Atlantic , which supplied American newspaper editors with all the papers printed in London - , hence he imagines that Franklin " must have read , or had his attention called to the statements in the Constitution of 1738

about Coxe ' s appointment in 1730 . " But with all due respect to Bro . Gould , I think that his ideas are altogether too far-fetched ; for in the first place there is not the slightest evidence in existence that a Pennsylvania Mason ever wrote to an English Mason before 1749 . While

Bostonians did correspond with the English Masonic authorities in 1734 , 1736 , and 1743 . But as our Bostonians ( except in 1734 ) never corresponded with the Grand Lodge in London when they did not need a new Grand Master , I do not believe that the publication of the 1738 Constitution was known in Boston during the life-time of Daniel Coxe .

But there are other questions to be considered . 1 st . I am assured that in those days more ships arrived from London to Boston than to Philadel phia . 2 nd . That the arrival of London vessels even in Boston were few and far

between . 3 rd . That ships sailing between Boston and England , and vice versa , did not accomplish the voyage in less than seven months . 4 th . That from Europe to Philadelphia takes about five hundred miles more sailing

than to Boston , and that letters between London and Boston were scarcely ever answered before between seven and twelve months after they were written . Even as late as 1789 , a letter from the Grand Secretary of

Pennsylvania to the Grand Secretary of England was not answered before 1790 , aud the 1790 letter was not auswered before 1791 . The Lodge which Price constituted in Boston in 1733 was unknown in London before 1734 . Tomlinson ' s

Deputation , signed in London , 6 th December 1736 , did not reach Boston before 20 th April 1737 , and if the said document had been sent to Philadelphia it would not have

reached there before the month of May . Oxnard ' s Deputation was signed in London , 23 rd September 1743 , its arrival in Boston was not announced before 6 th March

1744 . Price ' s letter was sent by Captain John Phillips to London , December 1754 . On 6 th August following Captain Phillips was in Boston , but Price ' s letter was

unanswered ; and Price ' s letter to the Grand Secretary of England , of October 1767 , was not answered before 29 th November 1768 , and it probably did not reach Boston till three or more months later .

Ar00201

But another point requires explanation . We know that Coxe died 25 th April 1739 ; we also know that the second Constitution was printed in 1738 , but I do not know in which month of 1738 it was printed , nor the dates

of the papers which contained the notice of Coxe ' s appointment by the Duke of Norfolk , in 1730 . According to Preston , the Constitution , was published in . January 1738 . If so , it must have been January 1739 , or according to our

N . S . ; for I found at tho end of the volume the date of 9 th Nov . 1738 ; hence it might not have been ready for distribution before the end of January 1739 , while , on the other hand , owing to the retarding current ofthe Gulf stream , it

even now takes more time for a vessel to sail from Europe to America than it does the other way . Now , assuming that a vessel in fair weather could travel from London to Philadelphia in three months , the weather , however ,

between January and the 25 th April is apt to be stormy and westerly , and even now it takes steam ships in those months several days more to reach America than it does in the summer months . Before , therefore , I can accept Bro .

Gould ' s conclusion about Franklin ' s knowledge of Coxe ' s Grand Mastershi p of 1730 , before 25 th April 1739 , I must be informed about the date of the paper which furnished the item of news about Daniel Coxe ' s Masonry ; he

must also show good evidence that the said newspaper was sent to Philadelphia , and that the ship which carried the said paper arrived at its destination before Coxe died .

And , even then , unless Bro . Gould can prove that the said paper was addressed direct to Franklin , there are a thousand chances to one that Franklin never saw it and never heard about it while Coxe was alive .

I must , however , add that if I could believe that Bro . Gould's conciliatory efforts would be appreciated by our disappointed Philadelphian Brethren ( who , until the appearance of Bro . Gould's last volume , were very sure that his

verdict would be in favour of Philadelphia Masonic Mothership ) , I would never have been guilty of trying to disturb the expected equanimity by criticising Bro . Gould ' s well-intentioned soothing theories ; but , alas , I am satisfied

that nothing that Bro . Gould concedes to the Pennsylvania champions—not even the consoling theory that the Philadel phia Masonry of 1731 was as legal as the Masonry of York , Dublin , and Cork were—will ever

satisfy them ; and I am sure that the Philadel phians and Pennsylvanians will never forgive our historian for deciding the question at issue in accordance with the rules of evidence and common sense . Boston , U . S ., 10 th June 1887 .

" Masonic Records " And Brother Jacob Norton.

" MASONIC RECORDS " AND BROTHER JACOB NORTON .

BY BEO . JNO . LANE . I HAD hoped that my communication of 7 th May last , in these columns , would have ended this matter , but Bro . Norton , in his last article , has so greatly mistaken ray meaning , and so glaringly misrepresented what I have said , that I must ask for a portion of your valuable space to make

a short statement ; for , notwithstanding my unwillingness to prolong a profitless controversy with Bro . Norton , injustice to myself I must correct the very grave error which he has committed in the early portion of his last contribution .

The head and front of my offence ( if it be an offence ) appears to be , in the opinion of Bro . Norton , that in my book I recorded the Lodge No . 79 as at " the Hoop in Water-st eet , in Philadelphia 1731 , " stating this on the

evidence of the " Dublin List of 1735 , " ( which I could not ignore ) , and adding , " warranted for America , bnt probably warrant never used . " In the FREEMASON ' CHONICLE of 19 th February 1887 I gave my reasons fully

for the latter opinion , which has not been shaken by Bro . Norton ' s allegations , and I still claim , in relation to all the evidence that has been furnished , that the balance of probability is largely in favour of the view I propounded .

Bro . Norton , however , says that " somehow a rumour reached Boston that the only mistake in Bro . Lane ' s book was discovered by himself [ I do not quite know whether to take Bro . Norton ' s words au serieux , or not , when he thus

writes about ' the only mistake , ' for I make no claim , even approximately , to such a state of infallibility ] , and that the said mistake referred to something in the paragrap h rel ating to Lodge No . 79 , " and then he goes on to allege