More Reasoning With Bro. Lane By Bro. Jacob Norton.

MORE REASONING WITH BRO . LANE BY BRO . JACOB NORTON .

WHEN I first read Bro . Lane ' s dogmatic statement that a Lodge in Philadelphia , No . 79 , was chartered by the Grand Lodge of England , I imagined that he had some evidence outside of the Dublin

reprinted Lodge List of 1735 . Bnt upon inquiry I find that the only reason for his belief was because the Dublin reprinter of Smith's Pocket Companion of 1735 "Must have had . . some valid and satisfactory

reason for inserting in his reprint' the Hoop in Water Street , Philadelp hia ; ' the probability being that he found it recorded in an engraved list of 1731 , a copy of which is unfortunately now unknown . "

Now with all due respect to Bro . Lane , I think that very few well informed Masons will accept his dictum that the Dublin Lodge List reprinter " must have had some

valid reason , " & c . The fact is , compilers of Lodge lists have repeatedly shown that they were fallible , for proof of which see Bro . Gould ' s " Four Old Lodges , " page 53 . And I must further add that in accordance with

Bro . Lane ' s method of reasoning , an Irish Masonic patriot might prove from the same Dublin 1735 Lodge List that Ireland is blessed with the " Premier Grand Lodge " of the British Isles , for in that Lodge list No . 1 of the Irish

Lodges stands first of all Lodges , and after giving thirtyseven Irish Lodges in succession , he continues the list . By turning the first English Lodge into No . 38 , the second English Lodge into No . 39 , & c , from

which our Irish patriotic Masons would conclude that the Grand Lodge of Ireland was older than the Grand Lodge of England , and that the English Lodges of 1735 were subordinate to the Grand Lodge of Ireland ; and if it

should be argued that the English Grand Lodge chartered Lodges several years before the Irish Grand Lodge did , our Irish patriots could reply , in the language of Bro . Lane ,

that the Dublin printer of 1735 , " must have had some valid and satisfactory reason , the probability being that he found it recorded in an engraved Lodge list , a copy of which is now unfortunately unknown . " Now there is not a fable that could not be defended

with Bro . Lane ' s mode of arguing , but no rational man will concede to such arguments . For instance , a thrice illustrious 33 ° reported , in 1849 , that certain Jews in Newport , Rhode Island , conferred the third degree in Masonry

in 1658 . The Rev . Bro . Petersen inserted that story in his " History of Rhode Island , " from which it was reprinted again and again . But iu 1870 Bro . Gardner , Grand Master of Massachusetts , requested the Newport luminary

to send his evidence ; and , to be short , the repl y was that the evidence was unfortunately lost , and Bro . Gardner ( who by-the-bye is now in Europe ) treated the reply with contempt , and denounced the story as humbug . For a full account of Bro . Gardner ' s reasons I refer the reader

to page 357 of the " Grand Lodge of Massachusetts Proceedings of 1870 * Again , Bro . Charles E . Meyer ' s letter , reprinted in this paper , 2 nd April , says , " Bro . Norton has written me

many times to get the old Bell Letter , and so has Bro . Hughan , " & c . Now , I have not only written many times , but have urged him , personally , to do so whenever I met him . Why he has delayed to do so for many years

is more than I can tell . However , we have at last his explanation , and the upshot is an admission that he ( Bro . Meyer ) did never see the original letter ; did not

know the person who owned it ; he is not even very sure what the owner ' s name was . In short , Bro . Meyer knows nothing about the Bell Letter save and except what Bro . Blackburne told him . It was Bro . Blackburne who

copied the fragmeut of the said letter , and Bro . Blackburne alone knew the owner of the letter . Bro . Meyer ordered Bro . Blackburne to offer the owner of the said letter

one hundred dollars for permission to have the MS . photographed ; but Bro . Blackburne said that the owner of the letter was a mysterious man , who would neither

More Reasoning With Bro. Lane By Bro. Jacob Norton.

part with the letter , nor allow it to be photographed ; and , he added , " that the price would have to be very high that

would induce him to part with it . It is very strange , though that mysterious person resided in Philadelphia , that Bro . Meyer should never have made an effort to hunt him up , or endeavoured to

ascertain how hi gh the price was for that letter . It is equally strange , that while the mysterious man brought the letter into the Grand Secretary ' s office of his own accord in 1873 , and allowed Bro . Blackburne to copy from

it what he pleased , that he should a few months later refuse the sum of £ 20 for permission to have ifc photographed . Now , all the evidence Bro . Meyer derived from Bro . Blackburne has been kept strictly secret by

Bro . Meyer , until after Brother Blackburne and the mysterious owner of the Bell letter have both died . The evidence of the Bell letter being " then unfortunately lost , " we are , therefore , called upon to believe all that Brother Meyer believes about it ; briefly then , it is my firm opinion

that my good friend Charles Meyer has heen duped by Bro . Blackburne .

And now , I will let out what I know about Lodge lists . In the 1738 Constitutions I find , as follows : — "In the Mastership of Dalkeith ( between June 1723

and Juno 1724 ) a list of all the Lodges was engraved by Bro . John Pine . . . which is usually reprinted on the commencement of every new Grand Master and dispersed among the brethren . "

The 1723 engraved Lodge list was really not engraved by Pine ; I was wrong therefore in styling Pine the father of Lodge list engravers , but he certainly engraved several ensuing Lodge lists , and he may therefore be termed the

first born son of Lodge list engravers . Now , bear in mind that Anderson said "usually reprinted'' which means not always . In fact , the second engraved list did not appear until two years after the first , hence it is not impossible

that between the years 1729 and 1734 no engraved Lodge lists atiall were printed ; for if such engraved Lodge lists had been regularly issued during those intervening years , surely Dr . Rawlinson would not have taken the trouble to

write for his own use a Lodge list , enumerating 116 Lodges , in July 1733 . Now , tbe several Lodge lists in which No , 79 appears are as follow , 1 st list No . 11 , Bro . Gould ' s

" Four Old Lodges . That list was taken from a record in Freemasons' Hall . It contains not only the numbers and locations of the Lodges , but also the names of the members of every Lodge , and I have myself seen that

record ; the record was written between 1730 and 1732

and contains one hundred and four Lodges . No dates however are annexed to the said Lodges I shall just give a specimen of the said list , aud afterwards compare it with later lists ,

thus—77 . Black Lyon , in Jockey Fields . 78 . Fountain , in Bury St . Edmunds . 79 . Castle , in Hig hgate .

80 . Angel , in Macclesfield . 81 . Fleece , in Bury St . Edmunds , Norfolk . The next Lodge lists that follow the above are

Rawlinson s of 1733 , Smith s and Pine s lists , both of 1734 , and Gould ' s list No . 12 of 1736-9 , and in all these lists tbe above quoted five Lodges are arranged in the same order and have the same numbers , the only difference being that

while in the first-named list No . 79 was located at the Castle in Highgate , in the next three lists No . 79 had no location . Pine improved his 1734 list by adding dates of the origins of the Lodges , from which list I learn that

No . 77 , at the Black Lyon , in Jockey Fields , was constituted 11 th January 1731 , and that No . 83 was constituted 17 th December 1731 , hence we see that seven Lodges were constituted in 1731 , and that No . 79 was the third Lodge

constituted m that year . No . 79 was probably constituted before the 25 th of March 1731 , hence it is placed in Pine ' s list of 1740 among the 1730 Lodges . But be that as it may , No . 79 at the Castle in Highgate was certainl y

constituted in 1731 , for every Lodge list confirms that fact , as I shall show hereafter , and there can be no doubt that No . 79 in every Lodge list I have seen ( except the Dublin one ) refers to one and the same Lodge that was originally located at the Castle in Highgate .

Bro . Lane , however , argues that whereas the Castle in Highgate Lodge did not pay £ 2 2 s for its charter before the 21 st of November 1732 , he claims that the said Lodge was not constituted before the last named date ,