Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Bro. Jacob Norton And His "Further Comments "On "Facts And Fictions."
BRO . JACOB NORTON AND HIS " FURTHER COMMENTS "ON "FACTS AND FICTIONS . "
BY BRO . H . SADLER . ( Continued from page 202 . )
MY second mistake may he placed in the same category as my first , for I cannot find it in tho book . However , here is a description of it , so perhaps my readers will b 3 more successful : —¦
" Second , with regard to the transposition of certain words , J have reason to believe that as late as 1742 no change was made by the Grand Lodge of England , nor do
France "I will now summarize as briefly as possible what I have said on this subject . In the year 1730 a pamphlet was published by one Prichard , purporting to be an exposure of Masonry , containing the ceremonies ,
& c . This pamphlet is mentioned in the minutes of the Grand Lodge at the time , and it appears to have occasioned much : anger and excitement amongst the members
Certain resolutions were passed , with a view of discountenancing impostors and preventing false brethren from gaining admission to the Lodges .
Another pamphlet of a similar character , but written by a different person , and originally published some time previous to tho year 1766 ( the copy I havo is on $ of a second edition , and was issued in tho last named year ) , in
which tho writer states that the then Entered Apprentice ' s word was formerly tho Fellow Craft ' s until the publication of Prichard ' s pamphlet , when , "in order to prevent being imposed upon by Cowans or Impostors who mi ^ ht
want to gain admittance from his Performance , the Fraternity held a general Council , and the E . A . ' s and F . C . ' s Words were reversed , and Private Accounts transmitted to each Lodge , tho' there are some unconstituted Lodges who still retain the former custom . "
In my opinion this story exactly coincides with the written minutes of Grand Lodge , which the author of the said pamphlet is not likely to havo seen , and as there is no apparent motive for the invention of the story , I say it is
" reasonable , and therefore not inconsistent with truth . " Bro . Norton doubtless considers the written records of Grand Lodge and a printed book , open to the whole world , as of no account whatever , for he does not even mention
them ; but what has he to offer in opposition to this evidence ? "I have reason to believe . " ..." nor do I believe , " ..."I have no doubt . " ...& c .
J believe that the Grand Lodge ever authorised any such change . I have , however , sent some hints to an English brother , whicb may prove that the change originated in
Surely he cannot expect the readers of the CHRONICLE to believe that in the year 1889 he knows more about these matters than one whose acquaintance with Masonry beo-an in 1753 , and yet it appears very much like it .
Having fully discussed this question in my article of 22 nd December I am not inclined to pursue it further , my only reason for adverting to it again was to correct the
" mistake ' which my critic tells me I have made ; but what is tbe mistake , and where is it to be found ? Give the page , Bro . Norton , if you please .
I have searched most carefully through the remainder of Bro . Norton's article for my third mistake , but , as he has omitted to indicate its locality , I am as much in the dark as I was with regard to the preceding ones . I will ,
however , take the liberty of correcting one or two little mistakes on his part , notwithstanding that this phase of the subject was , in my opinion , fairly and exhaustively dealt with in my article of 12 th January last . Being well aware
that " argument seldom convinces any ono contrary to his inclination , " I shall restrict myself to the task of pointing out , as briefly as possible , the mistakes of my corrector .
First , the Resolution-of 1724 , relating to the admission of visitors , clearly applies to Private Lodges only , and is therefore not applicable to the case of the Irish Masons who desired to be admitted to Grand Lodge in 1735 .
Bro . Norton ' s elaborate explanation seems to me quite superfluous , and not strictly impartial . I prefer the text in its native simplicity . These brethren were refused admission because they were not members of an English
Lodge , but they would have been admitted had they consented to " accept of a new Constitution here" ( and pay two guineas for it ) . Consequently the law of 1724 had nothing whatever to do with the incident . It is perfectly well known to Bro . Norton , and to all
Bro. Jacob Norton And His "Further Comments "On "Facts And Fictions."
Masonic students , that the " Deputation " mentioned was a
document empowering the holders to meet and work as Masons ; in fact only another name for a Constitution , or
Warrant . For these people to carry about with them , in addition to
this official document , a written or " Particular recommendation " from their Grand Master , wonld be , to my thinking , a most extraordinary and unlikely proceeding .
I do not say that the Grand Lodge was " Irish-hating , " unjust , " "bad , " or "heartless . " All this must be ascribed to Bro . Norton ' s exuberance of language and liveliness of imagination . This is what I do say : —
" Now , bearing in mind the fact that tho nobleman mentioned had only a few years before ( 1728-9 ) presided over their own Grand Lod ^ e with mnch iclat , and had also made them several valuable presents , this proceeding seems as churlish , as it was certainly shortsighted , on the part of the regulars . "
Bro . Norton knows perfectly well , no one better , that it is simply impossible for me to produce " evidence that either Morgan , Dermott , or any other of tho founders of the Ancients' concern in 1757 had ever heard about" the affair of 1735 . I might with equal reason challenge him
to produce evidence that they had not beard of it , but I really cannot at present see how such evidence would affect the question of secession . I should be glad to know on what page of the book
I stated that the Grand Lodge had " changed its ceremonies or ritual for the purpose of excluding Irish Masons from joining or visiting English Lodges ? " I am under the impression that I attributed these alterations chiefly to the
fear of Prichard ' s pamphlet , and I think if my critic reads again tho portion of the book from -which he has culled the " truly astonishing " quotation , he will readily perceive that
the " particular class" referred to was the " Society element , " or , as Anderson has it , "the better sort , " and that it was social condition , not nationality , that I had in my mind when writing it .
Bro . Norton cannot " see any connection between the riots of the Spitalfields weavers in 1736 , on account of the Irish competition with them in their trade , with the doings of the Grand Lodge in 1735 , or with the doings of Morgan
and Co . in 1751 . " Doubtless , also , in his sweet simplicity and trustful innocence , he has not the remotest idea that these riots were probably attended by " hatred , malice , and all uncharitableness , " and that" No Irish need apply is not
unlikely to have been tbe " shiboleth " of Masons as well as non-Masons in London at that period . Neither can he see anything at all remarkable in the fact of so large a number of the Spitalfields weaving fraternity being on the register
of the Ancients fifteen years later . I can only say that his mental blindness elicits my sincere pity , and excites my warmest sympathy . It is a curious coincidence , to say the
least of it , and in my opinion this circumstance alone indicates pretty clearly the origin of the so-called " Seceders . "
Possibly it may never have occurred to Bro . Norton that to raise the comparatively large sum of two guineas amongst these " poor Irish" to pay for a Warrant or Constitution might have been somewhat difficult in those days , even if they had been inclined to accept one .
As the article of 16 th March chiefly consists of a repetition of the " mud-slinging " substitute for argument and evidence previously referred to I am not disposed to spend much time over it , beingquite satisfied thatthe readers of the
CHRONICLE need no help from me to enable them -to estimate these " Further Comments " at their proper value . I will , however , remind my opponent that even should he succeed in making everybody believe that the " Ancients "
merited the opprobrium which he delights in showering upon them he will be as far off as ever from disproving my facts or discrediting my theory , indeed he will have rendered me some little service by confirming what I have
already stated , that they were a totally different and
distinct class of people from the general body of the " Moderns , " and therefore not likely to have been members of their Lodges . I am , as a matter of course , highly delighted and much flattered at finding that Bro . Norton has followed the
advice given in one of my former papers ; he has been studying Irish ; although , judging from the result , he does not appear to have made much progress . No doubt he
will improve if he goes on and gives his mind to it , but at present his knowledge of the subject appears to partake of a somewhat superficial character . I allude to his classification of the names of the members of the first
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Bro. Jacob Norton And His "Further Comments "On "Facts And Fictions."
BRO . JACOB NORTON AND HIS " FURTHER COMMENTS "ON "FACTS AND FICTIONS . "
BY BRO . H . SADLER . ( Continued from page 202 . )
MY second mistake may he placed in the same category as my first , for I cannot find it in tho book . However , here is a description of it , so perhaps my readers will b 3 more successful : —¦
" Second , with regard to the transposition of certain words , J have reason to believe that as late as 1742 no change was made by the Grand Lodge of England , nor do
France "I will now summarize as briefly as possible what I have said on this subject . In the year 1730 a pamphlet was published by one Prichard , purporting to be an exposure of Masonry , containing the ceremonies ,
& c . This pamphlet is mentioned in the minutes of the Grand Lodge at the time , and it appears to have occasioned much : anger and excitement amongst the members
Certain resolutions were passed , with a view of discountenancing impostors and preventing false brethren from gaining admission to the Lodges .
Another pamphlet of a similar character , but written by a different person , and originally published some time previous to tho year 1766 ( the copy I havo is on $ of a second edition , and was issued in tho last named year ) , in
which tho writer states that the then Entered Apprentice ' s word was formerly tho Fellow Craft ' s until the publication of Prichard ' s pamphlet , when , "in order to prevent being imposed upon by Cowans or Impostors who mi ^ ht
want to gain admittance from his Performance , the Fraternity held a general Council , and the E . A . ' s and F . C . ' s Words were reversed , and Private Accounts transmitted to each Lodge , tho' there are some unconstituted Lodges who still retain the former custom . "
In my opinion this story exactly coincides with the written minutes of Grand Lodge , which the author of the said pamphlet is not likely to havo seen , and as there is no apparent motive for the invention of the story , I say it is
" reasonable , and therefore not inconsistent with truth . " Bro . Norton doubtless considers the written records of Grand Lodge and a printed book , open to the whole world , as of no account whatever , for he does not even mention
them ; but what has he to offer in opposition to this evidence ? "I have reason to believe . " ..." nor do I believe , " ..."I have no doubt . " ...& c .
J believe that the Grand Lodge ever authorised any such change . I have , however , sent some hints to an English brother , whicb may prove that the change originated in
Surely he cannot expect the readers of the CHRONICLE to believe that in the year 1889 he knows more about these matters than one whose acquaintance with Masonry beo-an in 1753 , and yet it appears very much like it .
Having fully discussed this question in my article of 22 nd December I am not inclined to pursue it further , my only reason for adverting to it again was to correct the
" mistake ' which my critic tells me I have made ; but what is tbe mistake , and where is it to be found ? Give the page , Bro . Norton , if you please .
I have searched most carefully through the remainder of Bro . Norton's article for my third mistake , but , as he has omitted to indicate its locality , I am as much in the dark as I was with regard to the preceding ones . I will ,
however , take the liberty of correcting one or two little mistakes on his part , notwithstanding that this phase of the subject was , in my opinion , fairly and exhaustively dealt with in my article of 12 th January last . Being well aware
that " argument seldom convinces any ono contrary to his inclination , " I shall restrict myself to the task of pointing out , as briefly as possible , the mistakes of my corrector .
First , the Resolution-of 1724 , relating to the admission of visitors , clearly applies to Private Lodges only , and is therefore not applicable to the case of the Irish Masons who desired to be admitted to Grand Lodge in 1735 .
Bro . Norton ' s elaborate explanation seems to me quite superfluous , and not strictly impartial . I prefer the text in its native simplicity . These brethren were refused admission because they were not members of an English
Lodge , but they would have been admitted had they consented to " accept of a new Constitution here" ( and pay two guineas for it ) . Consequently the law of 1724 had nothing whatever to do with the incident . It is perfectly well known to Bro . Norton , and to all
Bro. Jacob Norton And His "Further Comments "On "Facts And Fictions."
Masonic students , that the " Deputation " mentioned was a
document empowering the holders to meet and work as Masons ; in fact only another name for a Constitution , or
Warrant . For these people to carry about with them , in addition to
this official document , a written or " Particular recommendation " from their Grand Master , wonld be , to my thinking , a most extraordinary and unlikely proceeding .
I do not say that the Grand Lodge was " Irish-hating , " unjust , " "bad , " or "heartless . " All this must be ascribed to Bro . Norton ' s exuberance of language and liveliness of imagination . This is what I do say : —
" Now , bearing in mind the fact that tho nobleman mentioned had only a few years before ( 1728-9 ) presided over their own Grand Lod ^ e with mnch iclat , and had also made them several valuable presents , this proceeding seems as churlish , as it was certainly shortsighted , on the part of the regulars . "
Bro . Norton knows perfectly well , no one better , that it is simply impossible for me to produce " evidence that either Morgan , Dermott , or any other of tho founders of the Ancients' concern in 1757 had ever heard about" the affair of 1735 . I might with equal reason challenge him
to produce evidence that they had not beard of it , but I really cannot at present see how such evidence would affect the question of secession . I should be glad to know on what page of the book
I stated that the Grand Lodge had " changed its ceremonies or ritual for the purpose of excluding Irish Masons from joining or visiting English Lodges ? " I am under the impression that I attributed these alterations chiefly to the
fear of Prichard ' s pamphlet , and I think if my critic reads again tho portion of the book from -which he has culled the " truly astonishing " quotation , he will readily perceive that
the " particular class" referred to was the " Society element , " or , as Anderson has it , "the better sort , " and that it was social condition , not nationality , that I had in my mind when writing it .
Bro . Norton cannot " see any connection between the riots of the Spitalfields weavers in 1736 , on account of the Irish competition with them in their trade , with the doings of the Grand Lodge in 1735 , or with the doings of Morgan
and Co . in 1751 . " Doubtless , also , in his sweet simplicity and trustful innocence , he has not the remotest idea that these riots were probably attended by " hatred , malice , and all uncharitableness , " and that" No Irish need apply is not
unlikely to have been tbe " shiboleth " of Masons as well as non-Masons in London at that period . Neither can he see anything at all remarkable in the fact of so large a number of the Spitalfields weaving fraternity being on the register
of the Ancients fifteen years later . I can only say that his mental blindness elicits my sincere pity , and excites my warmest sympathy . It is a curious coincidence , to say the
least of it , and in my opinion this circumstance alone indicates pretty clearly the origin of the so-called " Seceders . "
Possibly it may never have occurred to Bro . Norton that to raise the comparatively large sum of two guineas amongst these " poor Irish" to pay for a Warrant or Constitution might have been somewhat difficult in those days , even if they had been inclined to accept one .
As the article of 16 th March chiefly consists of a repetition of the " mud-slinging " substitute for argument and evidence previously referred to I am not disposed to spend much time over it , beingquite satisfied thatthe readers of the
CHRONICLE need no help from me to enable them -to estimate these " Further Comments " at their proper value . I will , however , remind my opponent that even should he succeed in making everybody believe that the " Ancients "
merited the opprobrium which he delights in showering upon them he will be as far off as ever from disproving my facts or discrediting my theory , indeed he will have rendered me some little service by confirming what I have
already stated , that they were a totally different and
distinct class of people from the general body of the " Moderns , " and therefore not likely to have been members of their Lodges . I am , as a matter of course , highly delighted and much flattered at finding that Bro . Norton has followed the
advice given in one of my former papers ; he has been studying Irish ; although , judging from the result , he does not appear to have made much progress . No doubt he
will improve if he goes on and gives his mind to it , but at present his knowledge of the subject appears to partake of a somewhat superficial character . I allude to his classification of the names of the members of the first