" Masonic Records " And Brother Jacob Norton Once More

us to such a mixture of probabilities and assertions as , I do not hesitate to say , are calculated to produce both amazement and amusement in the mind of every Brother who has taken the trouble to investigate the subject;—for

Bro . Norton ' s theory , in reference to the formation of this Wolverhampton Lodge , is so wild and visionary , and his statements so utterly groundless and without the least

foundation of truth , that one almost wonders whether he really does want to elicit the facts , or whether he does not rather prefer the fictions and fancies of his own creation .

Now for the facts . The Lodge constituted at Gateshead , 8 th March 1735-6 , then No . 77 , was erased on 27 th January 1768 , being one of the Nineteen Lodges which having " ceased to meet , or neglected to conform to the laws of this society , were erased out of the list . "

Later on in the year 1768—viz ., on 22 nd Novemberthe entirely new Lodge at Wolverhampton was erected I make this statement with all dne care and deliberation

It paid £ 2 2 s for its Constitution , in pursuance of the law of 1729 , already cited , and appears in the Engraved List for the following year ( 1769 ) as of the date 8 March 1735 .

The Warrant of this old Lodge has been lost , but its first Minute Book is , fortunately , still in existence , and from it the following extract is made : — "To all it may at any time concern . Be it known that this Lodge

was legally conatituted on the 22 day of November 1768 , under the Authority of a Warrant from the Grand Lodge bearing date the 5 th day of November 1768 and in the year of Masonry 5768 . His Grace Henry Somerset , Duke of Beaufort , Marquis and Earl of

Worcester , Earl of Glamorgan , viscount Grosmont , Baron Herbert , Lord of Ra » lan , Chepstow , and Gower in Monmouthshire , also Baron Beaufort , of Caldicott Castle , Grand Master ; the Worshipfnl Charles Dillon D . G . M ., Thos . French G . S ., nominating the Right Hon . John

Viscount Dudley and Ward , Baron of Birmingham , Grand Master ( sic ) , Doctor Gilbert Stewart Senior Warden , James Pieldhouse Junior Warden , John Smith Stevens Secretary , and John Jesson Treasurer ,

for opening the said Lodge and for such , further time as shall be thought proper by the brethren thereof . " 8 th Dec . 1768 , Revd . James Marsh initiated ( being the first candidate ) on the first step in Masonry . "

This is , in my judgment , very substantial and convincing evidence , the best that can be obtained at this remote period , to prove most conclusively and satisfactorily thafc this was an entirely new Lodge , the brethren named in the

Warrant not being members of the Gateshead Lodge , but the originators of a new Lodge in quite another part of the country ; and that this Wolverhampton Lodge was actually constituted by Charter from the Grand Lodge , and

officially received the number of an old Lodge which had been recently erased . If Bro . Norton thinks these facts are not in harmony with the laws of Grand Lodge , then his controversy must bo with those who transgressed the

law , but not with me . Bro . Norton should deal with the facts as fads , and not try to explain them away in his " highly probable " manner . For his suggestions that the Wolverhampton Masons procured their Warrant through

the intervention of the Gateshead brethren , and that four guineas were paid by the Wolverhampton Masons for the Charter and Charity Fund , together with all the other

details so circumstantially narrated , are but shallow inventions by Bro . Norton , and lack entirely the only element that could make them serve his purpose—viz ., a basis of Truth .

I do not think it necessary to go farther into the origin of this Lodge , which was constituted on payment of the prescribed sum for a New Lodge , contenting myself with

confirming the statement that "influences operated to procure for it the number 77 , which had then recently been vacated by a Gateshead Lodge . " I may , however , say thafc my opinion was formed after a due consideration of the

circumstances I have quoted—viz ., that the first Master named in the Warrant for this new Lodge was Lord Viscount Dudley and Ward , who ( as the Hon . John Ward ) was a Grand Warden in 1733 and 1734 , and who ( as John

JLiord Ward , Baron of Birmingham ) was Grand Master from 27 th April 1742 to 2 nd May 1744 . There was evidentl y no occasion for him to go to Gateshead to procure the old number that was vacant .

, But I will now go further back , and produce another instance of this nature , which took place during the period when the law of 1735 was operative . On 19 th January 1 ( 39 ( 1738-9 ) a Lodge was constituted at the Flower Pot , fwhopscrate Street , London , as No . 178 . and on thp

^ Ist January in the same year three members attended ^ rand Lodge , and paid the then customary and prescribed sum of £ 2 2 s for tho Constitution . Its first appearance in

" Masonic Records " And Brother Jacob Norton Once More

the Engraved List is at the end of the List for 1738 ( official copy ) , in which is written " 178 , Flower Pot , in Bishopsgate Str . " The List for 1739 has engraved : " 178 [ sign of ] Flower Pot , Bishopsgate Street , 2 d and 4 th

Friday 19 th Jan . 1738 . " Its position and surroundings prove this to be of the year 1738-9 . In the 1740 and 1741 Engraved Lists it is numbered 165 , the numbers having

been closed up during the former year . In the List for 1741 the Lodge is crossed out in ink , and against its name on the opposite page are written the significant words , " Never attended since the Constitution . " Notice was sent

to this Lodge , by order of the Grand Lodge , on 8 th February 1743 , and on the 9 th April 1743 it was ordered that the seven Lodges therein named , including No . " 165 at the Flower Pot , in Bishopsgate-street , should be

immediately erazed oub of the List of Regular Lodges for not attending the Grand Master in Quarterly Communication , pursuant to several Notices sent them respectively ; " and they were erased accordingly .

I go now a step further . In the Engraved List for 1744 ( official copy ) the number 165 is blank , save the entry in MS ., "Hare and Hounds , Parsonag Lane , Manchester , 1 & 3 Monday , " the List for 1745 having regularly

engraved " 165 [ sign of ] Hare and Hounds , Parsonage Lane , Manchester , 1 & 3 Monday 1738 . " This Lodge ( " Masonic Records , " p 48 ) " appears to have been

constituted by the Prov . Grand Master , but not returned to Grand Lodge at the time . Hence it is not in the Lists until 1744 , when it had assigned to it the place and number of the vacant No . 165 . "

Will not this suffice to convince Bro . Norton that there could have been no possible amalgamation of members of these two Lodges , and that there was no succession from one Lodge to the other ? or will he suggest that members of

the London Lodge went to Manchester and joined the Lodge there , for the purpose of obtaining a renewal of the old Warrant ? Such an assumption , like Bro . Norton ' s

" highly probable" theory in relation to the Wolverhampton Lodge , would be utterly worthless , and would be contradicted on every hand by the undoubted and uncontrovertible facts .

Other instances might be adduced , but these two should satisfy Bro . Norton that I have proved " that an old number of an extinct Lodge was [ in both these cases ] conferred upon an entire new body of Masons , " and that

" the law of 27 th Dec . 1727 ( viz ., that the precedency of Lodges is grounded on the seniority of their Constitution ) was [ in the case of the Wolverhampton Lodge ] knowingly and wilfully violated with the sanction of the Grand Lodge . "

Before closing this article I would ask Bro . Norton very earnestly to see the desirability of carefully ascertaining the accuracy of the statements he puts forward as facts . He does not hesitate to point out what he considers to be

the mistakes of others , but is apparently oblivious of his own . In former articles I have had to point out some glaring misstatements . There is another now before me ,

of so serious a character ( viewed historically ) , that I do not hesitate to point out its inaccuracy , so that it may not be hereafter quoted as authentic .

In his first notice of my Book , which appeared in the FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE of 12 th February last , referring to No . 79 , Bro . Norton , " For the information of the general reader" explains "that in 1735 was published 'Smith's

Freemason ' s Pocket Companion , ' containing a List of about 125 Lodges subordinate to the Grand Lodge of England . In those days Lodges had no names , each line in the Lodge List began with the number of the Lodge , followed by the

name of the public house wherein the Lodge used to meet , the days of its meetings , and last by the date or year of its Constitution . One line on the said List ( Bro . Norton says ) differed , however , from the rest . On that line it began

with 79 and ended ivith 1 / 30 , but the intervening space was blank . There was no place of meeting or clays of meetings indicated in the List . Consequently , no one could learn from thafc List ia what part of the world Lodge No . 79 was located . "

Tin ' s is set forth with such an apparent air of reality , and such a resemblance to a truthfully compiled staetment , that the general reader , for whose sake it was written ,

would naturally conclude ifc was veritably true , especially as a little further on in the same article Bro . Norton refers aeaiti to " the empty space on the Lodge List between 79 . ' _ ! 1730 . " From such statements one would be led to believe , without doubt , that there was a date to this Lodge