Some Further Reasoning With Bro. Lane.

SOME FURTHER REASONING WITH BRO . LANE .

BY BRO . JACOB __ . OJ . TON .

I REPEAT what I stated before , that Bro . Lane ' s " Masonic Records " is a very valuable work , and for this very reason I take the liberty of questioning why I should believe in his dictum that Lodge Wo . 79 was

warranted for America ? also , why he supposed that the warrant was never used ? To the latter question Bro . Lane makes no answer at all , while his answer to the former question merely indicates his superabundant faith

in what he finds in Lodge lists . In short , he seems to think that whatever evidence is furnished by a Lodge list compiler , or even a Lodge list mender , is infallible . Our good brother says : —

" That the Publisher or Editor of the Dublin edition of Smith's Pocket Companion of 1735 must have had at the time some valid and satisfactory reason for inserting in his reprint the Hoop iu Water

Street , Philadelphia , the probability being that he found it recorded in an en « raved Lodge list of 1731 , a copy of which is unfortunately now unknown . "

Now , I agree with Bro . Lane that the Dublin reprinter of Smith ' s Pocket Companion had some reason for inserting the Hoop , & c , into the vacant place after 79 , but it does not follow that " he must have had a valid reason , "

for if the 1781 Lodge list had assigned No . 79 to Philadelphia , surely Bro . Pine , who engraved all the Lodge lists from 1723 , would have known it , but in his engraved Lodge list for 1734 , No . 79 is followed by a

blank ; and so it is in the original edition of the Pocket Companion of 1735 ; and even in Rawlinson ' s Lodge li t of 1733 No . 79 is vacant . On the other hand , it is certainly not very uncommon for Masonic writers to jump at wrong

conclusions , or to repeat wrong conclusions of other Masonic jumpers . Nor can I admit that Lodge list compilers are necessarily free from that Masonic frailty , jumping . Pine ' s Lodge list of 173 * 4 furnishes conclusive

evidence that Lodge list compilers could repeat nonsense , the same as Masonic writers in other departments have repeatedly done , for Bro . Pine informs us that Lodge No . 65 , St . Rook ' s Hill , near Chichester , dates back to

" the reign of Julius Caesar . " Now , as I cannot believe Bro . Pine , the very first of all Lodge list compilers , why must I believe that the Dublin reprinter of a Lodge list must have had valid reason ?

Bro . Lane further says , that Bell ' s letter harmonized with his theory , but the fact is Bell ' s letter disproves his theory . Bell wrote that " a party of us used to meet afc the Tun Tavern in Water Street . " Franklin ' s Lod

hold its meetings at the Tun Tavern , until it removed in 1735 to Market Street ; and we have no evidence that either Bell or the Franklin , St . John ' s , Lodge had ever held a meeting at the Hoop Tavern . Now , there is

no doubt that previous to 1734 there was but one Lodge in Philadelphia , and there can be no doubt that in 1734 there were no more than two Lodges in Philadelphia , viz ., Franklin ' s Lodge , composed of " old brethren " and "true

brethren , " and another Lodge composed of rebels aud foreigners , who made Masons for a bowl of punch . If , therefore , any Lodge ever beld meetings at the Hoop before 1735 it must have been , what I shall call the "Bowl of

Punch Lodge . " Now , can Bro . Lane really believe that Warrant No . 79 was sent to the Bowl of Punch Lodge at the Hoop in Water Street , Philadelphia , in 1734 , while

Franklin ' s respectable Lodge , consisting of " old brethren " and " true brethren , " had no authority at all , as Franklin ' s letter of 28 th November 1734 , to Henry Price , of Boston , clearl y implies ?

Bro . Lane advances another curious theory . I presume that we all know the meaning of " Old Style " and of " New Style , " hence writers of the first half of the last century would sometimes call—we will sav—between

1 st January 1731 and 25 th March following as either belonging to 1730 or to 1731 ; hence , suppose No . 79 was constituted between 1 st January ancl 25 th March 1731 , some writers would call No . 79 a 1730 Lodge , ancl others

would call it a 1731 Lodge . This being understood , I agree with Bro . Lane that No . 79 was a 1731 Lodge , but I differ with him on another point . I believe that No . 79 of the

Oastle at Highgate removed in 1731 or 1732 to St . Martin ' s Lane , and that from 1731 to 1740 ( when the No . of the Lodge was changed ) the Highgate Lodge was the only ' 9 that figured on tho English Grand Lodge Register .

Some Further Reasoning With Bro. Lane.

While Bro . Lano believes that one Lodge with No . 79 was constituted in Highgate in 1731 , and another Lodge with No . 79 was constituted in Sfc . Martin ' s Lane in 1732 , and a

third Lodge No . 79 was warranted for America;—none know in what year;—all of which I am to believe because a Dublin Lodge list tinker in 1735 located No . 79 at the Hoop in Water Street , Philadelphia .

Now , with all dne respect to Bro . Lane , I cannot agree with him about his three seventy-niners on the English Lodge lists of between 1731 and 1735 , and I doubt very

much whether either Bro . Woodford , Bro . Gould , Bro . Abbott , Bro . Sadler , or any other equally well informed Mason ( with the exception perhaps of Bro . Hughan ) would endorse Bro , Lane ' s new theory . BOSTON , U . S ., 7 th March 1887 .

George H. Burnham.

GEORGE H . BURNHAM .

THE Freemasons' Repository for February presents the features of the esteemed friend and brother whose name is placed at the head of this article . The engravit g is excellent , the lines being well defined and sharply drawn , and there is an artistic finish stamped upon the picture which adds to its attractiveness . That it is a truthful

likeness will not be questioned by those who have the acquaintance of Bro . Burnham . The expression may be a trifle stern , for it represents the features in repose , as wl . ea

fixed in earnest thought and resolve , but it is the look nofc infrequently seen upon the face of our brother and detracts nothing from the value of the portrait .

The subject of this sketch was born in Pelham , N . H ., in the year 1832 . He is a descendant in the eighth generation of that John Burnham who came in his youth from Norwich , Norfolk Co ., England , to America . This was in

1635 . On attaining manhood he was admitted a freeman in Massachusetts Bay Colony , and became influential in the affairs of the Association . He rendered good service in the

Pequot war , and showed that patriotic spirit which has characterized his descendants in a marked degr e , for the family has been represented in every war fought in this country since the early colonial period .

Bro . Burnham , like so many youths New Hampshire born , wended his way to Boston at an early age , whero he engaged in telegraphy for several years . He afterwards entered the service of the New Er . glaud Roofing Company , and

while thus employed he removed to Providence , K .. I ., where he has since resided . Soon after removing to Providence , civil war broke out , and he was quick to respond to his

country s call . He enlisted as a private in Company B , First Regiment of tho Rhode Island Detached Militia , and later was second lieutenant in the Ninth Rhode Island

Volunteers . He was afterwards commissioned second lieutenant in the Fourteenth Rhode Island Heavy Artillery . This last commission , however , he did not accept , but

entered again upon the pursuits of peace , taking a position in the office of Messrs . Doyle and Joslin , auctioneers and commission dealers in real estate and stocks . While

with this firm he gave proof of his business capabilities , and especially of that untiring energy which is so noticeable an attribute of his character . He was active aud efficient in the prosecution of whatever interests he took in hand .

In 1870 the firm of Doyle and Joslm dissolved , and the subject of this paper succeeded to the business , which he

still carries on . Ho has gained a valuable experience regarding real estate in Providence and the vicinity , so that his advice is sought as that of a man whose judgment can be relied upon .

He has always shown an interest in public affairs and for many years he has been an active force in municipal matters . He was elected to the Common Council of Providence for five successive years , he has since been elected

for seven successive years to the Board of Aldermen , making twelveyears of efficient service in these departments . He has served on many important committees in both branches of the City Council . For two years he was one

of the representatives of the city in the State Legislature , serving on the Committee of Finance , and exercising a good degree of influence in all matters of important legislation . In military affairs his interest has been shown in various ways . He is a member of the United Train of Artillery and holds the rank of Major in that ancient organization .