Bro. Norton's Criticisms.

BRO . NORTON'S CRITICISMS .

WE are always willing , within the limits of reason , to place our columns at tho disposal of Bro . Norton , or , indeed , of any brother , who has anything to say of interest to the Masonic community . But Bro . Norton will no doubt see the propriety of restricting any controversies that may arise out of such communications , especially

when they relate to matters which are not of primary importance to the English Confraternity . The question whether the introduction of Freemasonry into America dates from the Coxe Deputation of 1730 , or the Price Deputation in 1783 , is not of that supreme importance to us

that we can afford unlimited space in our columns for its discussion . "While then we shall , on the present occasion , offer some few remarks on Bro . Norton ' s criticism of our articles on the " Credibility of Early American Masonic History , " for the purpose of showing that he has failed to

understand the temper and tenour of our arguments ; and while , also , we shall afford him , as indeed we should afford any other correspondent whom we esteemed equally , or even less than we do Bro . Norton , the opportunity of reply , we must take this opportunity of pointing out that the

discussion must not be further prolonged . We have but a modest space at our command for the discussion of general questions ; and if we devote too much of it to one subject , we

must do so to the exclusion of others of equal , or it may be of greater , importance . Having said thus much as to the continuance of the argument , we pass at once to Bro . Norton ' s criticism .

We will , m the first place , point out an error into which our correspondent , like many other correspondents , has fallen . He speaks of our articles as though they expressed the opinion of an individual . They are necessarily written each by a single person ,

but the views they enunciate are the views of the CHRONICLE , that is , of a body corporate , with a policy and opinions of its own on all general questions . It cannot be denied that the writer of every leading article has the opportunity of expressing his own ideas in whatever he

writes , but when it is accepted editorially—and the appearance of his article in these columns , is evidence of such acceptance—then the individuality ceases , and the ideas of tho person become the ideas of the journal . In the second place , we do not think it possible for Bro . Norton to find

any more impartial medium for the discussion of such a matter as this credibility of early American Masonic history than an English Masonic journal . It is impossible for us to incline more favourably towards Philadel phia than towards Boston . It does not concern us , personally or

impersonally , which of these twain is the Mother City of American Freemasonry . What we are interested in elucidating is the truth as to certain documents of greater or less value to all interested in the history of Freemasonry all over the world . Every one must see that a Bostonian

would naturally espouse the side of Boston in any controversy until at least irrefutable evidence were given that the views of Boston were wrong . On the other hand , a Philadelphian would naturally espouse the cause of Philadelphia , until or unless it were proved that the cause of

Philadelphia was unsupportable by fair argument . An English Masonic journal , however , which has no prejudice for or against either of the contestant parties , is sure , yjso facto , to argue the case impartially and on its ' merits ; and the value of its argument will depend on its skill or want of skill , its insight or want of

Bro. Norton's Criticisms.

insight , not on any inclination towards either of the parties . It will endeavour to eliminate what is trustworthy and acceptable , not because it loves Philadelphia more and Boston less , but because it is anxious to subserve the interests of truth . We do not think less well of Bro .

Norton , we do not esteem him less , because he adheres to the opinions he has more recently arrived at as to Boston being the Masonic Mother City of America ; but we do not attach any greater value to those opinions merely because he has re-affirmed them , for the simple reason that nothing

he said in his paper of last week has in the slightest degree changed our idea of their value . For instance , he still continues to lay great stress on the assumption he made in the first instance , to the effect that Franklin could not have been a Mason in 1730 , because he published a

burlesque on Freemasonry . We have said , and we repeat , that this is a most lamentable non sequitur . This is not argument , but assertion ; and , albeit Bro . C . E . Meyer , of Philadelphia , and several prominent Masons are of the same opinion as Bro . Norton , we fail to see how the mere opinion of living men can demonstrate what is undemonstrable with the evidence

before us . What is of still greater importance is , thab it does not , as we have said , make the slightest difference in respect of the value of this testimony whether Franklin was or was not a Mason in 1730 . He was beyond all question a journalist whose interest would so far accord with his dut y

as to induce him to insert in the columns of tbe journal of which he was the proprietor only such intelligence as would be not only interesting but trustworthy . We have in existence the original of the Coxe Deputation , among the archives of G . Lodge , England , and we have it stated in the

Pennsylvania Gazette , later in the s'imeyear as to date than the Deputation , that " there are several Freemasons' Lodges in this Province , " & c ; and it has been stated by Bro . Mac-Calla—and his statement has not been denied—that at the banquet after G . Lodge on 29 th January 1731 , Coxe ' s health was drunk as " Provincial Grand Muster of North 4 m » rica . "

Bro . Hughan inclines to the belief that Lodge No . 79 in Pine ' s list of 1734 , & c , & c , will tarn out to be the Philadelphia Lodge which met at the Hoop , in Water-street , in the fall of 1730 . This , of course , remains to be proved , but a man accustomed to deal with circumsta itial evidence

wonld take the existence of the Coxe Deputation , the reference to Lodges of Freemasons being holden in the Province , and the undenied statement about the recognition , in January 1731 , of Coxe as P . G . M . of North America , together with Bro . Bell ' s letter , bearing date 1754 , as being strong in favour of the Philadelphia Mothership of

Freemasonry . We must pass now to Bro . Norton ' s statements about Franklin and his trustworthiness at this period . We have read , in a recent issue of the Keystone , a series of extracts from the Pennsylvania Gazette already referred to , relating

to Philadelphia Grand Lodge . We take our respected contemporary ' s words for the correctness of these extracts . and , relying on such correctness , we find that announcements about Masonry were made in Franklin ' s paper at frequent intervals . All these \ extracts

point to the continuous existence of a Grand Lodge in the Province , and make us more than ever inclined to repose confidence in the first announcement of all , that "there are several Freemasons' Lodges in this

Province . ' As we know from events which occurred elsewhere in the Masonic world about this period , that " occasional " Lodges were frequently held , there does not seem to be any improbability in the statement ; but the point which it is sought to establish is , not whether several