Our Twenty-Ninth Volume.

OUR TWENTY-NINTH VOLUME .

f \ NCE more the pleasure devolves upon us of addressing a few words to our readers at the commencement of a new Volume—to mark , as it were ,

the completion of another mile on our course , and to record our start on a TWENTY-NINTH STAGE . We have now been so long associated with the Craft Universal in a journalistic capacity that we regard its

members as intimate personal friends , whose good wishes and encouragement it is our especial desire to secure . Our past career is the best guarantee we can offer for our future behaviour , and our fondest hope is

that we may deserve , year by year , increased support from those for whom we cater , and that , what we do may result for the benefit of the Craft and the advancement of its members . Once more we tender

thanks for the encouragement that has been accorded us , and once again we promise to do all that lies in our power to merit an even greater share of the suffrages of Freemasons , both at home and abroad .

Such are the sentiments with which we launch our TWENTY-NINTH VOLUME , which , we trust , will be brought to a successful termination in regular course , and will be followed by many more in years to come .

Brother Sadler's Answer To Bro. Jacob Norton's

BROTHER SADLER ' S ANSWER TO BRO . JACOB NORTON'S

" COMMENTS ON FACTS AND FICTIONS . "

( Continued from Vol . XXVIIL , page 405 . ) EOR reasons given in my article of the 15 th December , I must beg to be excused entering into a discussion as to the troth or falsity of Dermott ' s account of Sir Christopher Wren ' s Grand Mastership ; possibly Brother Norton may be right ; if so Dermott , of course , must have

been wrong , as many other historians have been who have had better opportunities for ascertaining the truth than n journeyman painter could have had in the middle of the last century . For my own part I am not disposed to

accept either Anderson ' s or Dermott ' s account of the origin and formation of the Grand Lodge of 1717 as perfectly reliable ; and , moreover , I do not expect to find any man infallible , not even Bro . Norton , who , in my opinion ,

is unjust to himself in stating that he disbelieves " anything and everything that was written by Dermott , and even his Grand Lodge records are , in my opinion , utterly unworthy of credence . " 1 am not quite sure that we agree

as to what should come under the definition of " records , " but I think the term onghfc certainly to include the Minute Books and Registers of the Grand Lodge ; if these are what Bro . Norton deems " unworthy of credence" lam fairly

Brother Sadler's Answer To Bro. Jacob Norton's

puzzled to know what , in his opinion , is worthy of credence . I know he has seen some of the Registers , but am not sure that he has examined the Minute Books . If he has not , his exDression of opinion ought not to influence any one , and if

he has , I am quite certain it will not affect the views of those brethren who are personally familiar with them , and are quite as capable of forming an opinion as to their credibility as he is . I always like to give honour where

honour is duo , and shall , therefore , without hesitation , assign to Bro . Jacob Norton the merit of having been the very first to give expression to an opinion that the Grand Lodge records of the Ancients are " unworthy of credence . "

Ifc is just possible , however , that there may be some few inquisitive people scattered about the world who would like to know something more about the said " records " before coming to a conclusion . It is but fair therefore that ^ I

should state that they are not frinted loohs , but the veritable written transactions of the various meetings , in the handwriting of the different Grand Secretaries , recorded at the time of occurrence ; those written by Dermott himself , » vLicli I aoaxtmo t > ia +. "Rrn Nnrfcrm considers as most "

unworthy of credence , " embracing a period when in their wildest dreams of future power aud prospe / ity the Ancients could never have imagined such an event would ever come

to pass as an union on more than equitable terms with their formidable opponents , who affected to hold them in so much contempt . These books were handed over , with the other property of the " Ancients , " to the custody of the officials of

the United Grand Lodge some twenty-four years after the death of Dermott , and I can safely say that they have never been tampered with from the time they were written to the uicocuu

uav . With regard to the incident which first raised Bro . Norton's suspicions of Dermott's natural propensity for forging documents ; we all know how easy it is to discover faults if we set out in search of them , and this , ifc appears , is what Brother Norton has done all through his

investigation of this question of the " Ancients . " Hence his frequent mistakes . I will readily admit that he is very much at a disadvantage in the matter of obtaining information , whereas I have every facility of daily and hourly access to original records and documents such as no other person has

ever had , or , at all events , no one of this generation has ever availed himself of . The great difference between us may be accounted for by the fact that in approaching an historical subject I do so with strict impartiality . I look

for truth , and reliable evidence , and have met with a fair amount of success ; hence I can see nothing inconsistent or extraordinary in the incident which first awakened Bro . Norton ' s suspicions , of course bearing in mind the

great difference betweeen the years 1757 and 1888 , and the fad that the second letter , which he refers to as having been read in the Grand Lodge in 1762 was not read until exactly ten years after that date , viz ., on the 2 nd September

1772 . In dealing with this very difficult subject , it must be admitted that Bro . Gould has treated it most carefully and

most exhaustively , according to the information at his command ; and if Bro . Norton will again refer to p 446 of the fourth volume of his very valuable work he will , I make no doubt , readily admit that Tie has made the mistake and not Bro . Gould . That a Deputy Grand Seci etary in 1772 should

not be well posted in everything that was said and done by a Grand Secretary in the name of his Grand Lodge fifteen years previously is not a matter of surprise to me . In all