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

casions , it has prompted him to make assertions for which he has no authority , and which are directly opposed to evidence . There cannot be , in my opinion , the shadow of a doubt that Lord Blessine-ton ivas Grand Master of the

" Ancients" from 1756 to 1760 , for the " Transactions " of the Grand Lodge show that he was regularly elected and proclaimed every year , with his own permission , until the 24 th December 1760 , when , at a Grand Lodge

of Emergency , the Deputy Grand Master announced that "his Lordship had signified his desire of quitting the Chair . " The Earl of Kelly , who had intimated his willingness to accept the Grand Mastership , was

nominated and elected at the same meeting , and installed on the following St . John ' s Day . There is no evidence , so far as I am aware , of any " reluctance " on the part of Lord

Blessington to take the Chair , that ho ever " regretted " that step , that he was " ashamed of his new connection , " or that he " was anxious to cast himself loose from Dermott

and Co . " The simple fact that he performed the functions of Grand Master longer than any of his predecessors ( with one exception ) , either in England , Scotland or Ireland , should suffice to dispose of each and all of these assertions .

And as for his not going " near them ; " that does not amount to much , for they evidently went near enough to him to enable him to sign the Warrants and do anything else that was required . Bro . Norton is probably not aware that some of the Grand Masters on the other side

only attended Grand Lodge once during their term of office , and it may be a matter of surprise to him to learn that the present M . W . G . Master of England has not attended Grand Lodge for several years , but we do not infer

thereby that His Royal Highness is ashamed of his connection , or ihat he wishes "to cast himself loose " from us . We know perfectly well that although our Royal

Grand Master does not often preside in person over our assemblies , he takes a warm interest in the affairs of the Craft ; he signs our Warrants and other documents , and indeed does everything that we can reasonably expect him

to do . We also know that if H . R . H . had a desire to vacate his office he "Would nofc heailate to give eiTccb to such desire , in the same way as the Earl of Blessington might have done had he been so disposed . The exception to ¦ which I have alluded was Lord Byron , who was elected Grand Master of the " Moderns " on the 3 rd of April 1747 ,

and bis successor was elected on the 16 th March 1752 . This nobleman attended Grand Lodge three times during his Grand Mastership , viz ., when he was elected , when he proposed his successor , and at the ensuing Grand Feast . *

I think I have now dealt with nearly all Bro . Norton s objections ; with what success I will leave to the judgment of the candid and impartial reader , I can only say that my task has been a most agreeable one , for corresponding

with him , either privately or publicly , is second only to the pleasure of meeting and conversing with him , and if I have not succeeded in knocking over all his fads and fancies I can only express my regret , for I assure him

I meant to do so , and I have done my best . He must therefore " take the will for the deed . " Still , if there should be any particular subject or question which he thinks is not quite clear and satisfactory , he has only to

mention it , and I shall be most happy to give it every attention . In looking over Bro . Norton ' s " Comments " to seo whether I had left undone anything I ought to have

done I stumbled against his " whopper" on page 242 of the CHRONICLE . Now I am not quite sure that Bro . Norton understands the meaning of the answer to which he has applied this significant phrase , and i £ he does , probably there are others who do not . I will therefore mention that

the key to it may be found on the base of the pedestal which forms the frontispiece of Masonic Facts and Fictions , and the following explanation is given in the third and all subsequent editions of Ahiman Rezon : — " In the queries

relative to Ancient and Modern Masonry ( page xxvi . ) the 1 author of Ahiman Rezon has said that he could convey his mind to an Ancient Mason in the presence of a Modern

Mason without the latter knowing whether either of them were Masons . He now positively asserts that he is able , with a few Masonic implements , i . e , two squares and a common gavil or hammer , to convey any word or sentence of

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

his own , or tho immediate dictations of a stranger , to a skilful or intelligent Freemason of tho Ancient Order , without speaking , writing or noise ; and that to any distance where the parties can see each other , and at the same time

be able to distinguish squares from circles . Bnt , as Mr . Locke observed , this is not the case with all Masons ( there were no Modern Masons in his time ) : few of them are acquainted with this secret . The writer of this note hag known it for upwards of thirty years , and has never taught it to more than six persons , of which number our Right Worshipful and very worthy Deputy Grand Master , William Dickey Esq ., is one , and Brother Shatwell , the

publisher of this book , another . Doubtless some of my readers are aware that Dermott alludes to what is known as " the Old Masonic Alphabet" ( probably a relic of the Operative Masons ) ,

the knowledge of which he appears to have been not a little proud of , for he has used it occasionally in his Registers and Minute Books , but the best specimen of his handiwork of this kind is that previously mentioned

on the frontispiece of Masonic Fads and Fictions . I am inclined to think that it was not so much a mystery to the Moderns as he imagined ; probably it may have gone out of fashion in London and have been comparatively lost

sight of in that neighbourhood : hence he fancied it was almost restricted to the Society to which he belonged ; I have certainly never met with it in either books or

documents appertaining to the Moderns , but I have on those belonging to their rivals . This explanation will probably render the " luhopper" less formidable than it appears at first sight .

Hitherto my efforts have been chiefly directed towards defending the character of Laurence Dermott , and I venture to think I have at all events succeeded in proving that he was not quite " so black as he is painted ; " next

week I hope to be able to ask Bro . Norton ' s opinion on certain features of my theory as set forth in the book which he evidently imagines ha has so minutely examined and so fairly and exhaustively critcised . ( To be continued . )

Masonic Freedom.

MASONIC FREEDOM .

THE true conception of Masonry is a grand and sublime one . It is at once an inductive and deductive philosophy of man as a social being . As a man is free so is Masonry—free . But true freedom is circumscribed by duties . The freedom of the individual man or

organisation implies the freedom of other men and organisations , and is incompatible with conflict ; hence the local Lodge prescribes the limit of the freedom of the individual , and the Grand Lodge defines the liberty of the offshoot .

These governmental prescriptions recognise the individual as a part of a large whole . They aim at the harmony of symphony— " To see that none go away dissatisfied , harmony being the strength and support of all organisations , more especially of ours . "

The most virtuous and philosophical limitation of human conduct is a positive prescription of duties . A law which forbids without defining a duty is of no benefit to any one but imbeciles and criminals in whom the last vestige of humanity is obliterated by abasement .

Freedom does not imply unlimited power on the part of the individual . My freedom is as sacred as yours and yours as mine . Ton have no right to curtail my liberty ; nor I yours . If my lust and avarice crave wealth , it is

not my privilege to wrong you by base advantage of my superiority of power , if , perchance , my wealth admits of my curtailing your ability by heavily mortgaging your property , or otherwise plunging you into difficulties from

which you cannot extricate yourself . Such a principle of action would not exercise itself in " seeing that none go away dissatisfied , " and would be very distantly removed

from the production of harmony . Unbridled exercise of power is a strong mark of slavery—slavery to a principle of avarice and lust .

The great Napoleon of warlike fame was as great a slave to his ambition in the exercise of his power and peculiarly skilful military tactics as the lone negro weighed down by the chains of his bondage in a central

African jungle . Unbridled ambition is the offspring of selfishness , and