At Last The Book Is For Sale.

AT LAST THE BOOK IS FOR SALE .

BY BSO . JACOB NORTON .

AN article of mine was printed in the " American Tyler , " of 23 rd December 1893 , in Which I criticised an address of Bro . S . D . Nickerson , which wound up as follows : " About five years ago , Brother Nickerson informed us that

he would . print the Massachusetts Grand Lodge records from 1733 to 1856 . Since then he has printed one volume of the said work , bufc never continued the work , nor has the printed volume seen the light since it was printed . It seems that the printed volume is suppressed . Of course there is reason for it , and

some speculation is even now circulating . One opinion is , that second thought convincd Bro . Nickerson that by circulating the volume it would help to explode his Henry Price hobby , and

I think that the above reason is not improbable . Perhaps , however , the perusal of the above may induce Bro . Nickerson to explain why he did not continue the work ? and why he suppressed the volume already printed ? "

1 st October 1893 . On the evening of the 21 st of March last , I was surprised to learn that the said reprint of the record is at last advertised in the Masonic Temple , on printed cards , as being for sale , and on the next day I got the book , —price two dollars , —and at once

had its Introduction read to me , wherein he informs us that he did not only print his Grand Lodge record from 1733 to 1792 " nearly as possible verbatim et literatim , " but also furnishes information about the following works and manuscripts in the archives of his Grand Lodge , viz :

1 . Eecord of the First Lodge in Boston , from 28 th Dec ( O . S . ) to 24 th July 1754 . 2 . Eecord of the Second Lodge in Boston , from 21 st Deo 1761 , to 16 th Feb . 1765 . 3 . Eecord of the Master ' s Lodge in Boston , from 2 nd Jan 1738 ( O . S . ) , to loth Jan . 1783 .

And goes on to say : " The records of these three Lodges furnish considerable information as to the proceedings of the Grand Lodge . For in the first half-century of their existence , the history of the Grand Lodge and of the First Lodge , so far as we know it , seems to

have been curiously intermingled . The records of one body frequently report transactions of the other . The First Lodge was often called the " Mother Lodge , " and Grand Master Gardner said its records ' gave a better account of Masonry in

Boston than the proceedings of the Grand Lodge , and minute and full accounts of the progress of the Craft were set out upon its pages . ' The intermingling may have been due in part to the fact that both records were for a time the work of the same

Brother . " Now , Brother Gardner could not have said what is above quoted in his address about Henry Price in 1871 , because at that time the record of the First Lodge was concealed in C . W .

Moore ' s house , who then pretented that the said record was burnt in the Temple in 1863 , and the record was not recovered till after Moore ' s death , in December 1873 . I would , therefore , like to be informed as to when Brother Gardner gave the above opinion ?

Bro . Nickerson continues thus : " Peter Pelham was made a Mason in the First Lodge in Boston , on the Sth November 1738 . On the 26 th September 1739 he was elected Secretary , and the record of that meeting is entered in a new , beautiful handwriting , and the same style

continued for five years . He served m that office , until 26 th September 1744 , when he was succeeded by his son Charles . The record of the Ledge recites tbat on the Sth August 1744 ' Brother Price proposed Mr . Charles Pelham as a candidate . ' He was accepted on the 22 nd of the same month , and on the

12 th September was made a Mason in due form . On the 26 th it was ' Voted that our late Secretary Bro . P . Pelham be paid Ten Pounds [ Old " Jetior , which really amounted to One Pound only ] , with thanks of the Society for his past services '; also ' Voted that Brother Charles Pelham be Secietary in room of our

late Secretary , who has laid it dovin . ' He served the Lodge in that capacity until 24 th July 1754 ( when the volume ends ) , and perhaps longer . This is the only book of record of the First Lodge in Boston now known to exist . The penmanship of both these Secretaries is bold , clear and beautiful , as distinct as when first executed , and as well done as it could he to-day . "

Now , in the first place , Bro . Nickerson says : " For the first-half century of their [ the records ] existence , the history of the Grand Lodge and of tbe First Lodge seem to have been curiously intermingled . The records of one body frequently report the transactions of the other , " & c .

At Last The Book Is For Sale.

The above implies the Grand Lodge had a record during the first-half of the last century . But is it so ? Brother Nickerson admits that Charles Pelham was not initiated before 12 th September 1744 ; he also admits that Pelham wrote the Grand Lodge record from July 1733 to January 1754 . And as Pelham was not elected Grand Secretary before 24 th June 1751 , it is

therefore evident that fche Grand Lodge had nofc a shadow of a record at least before 24 fch June 1751 . Such being the case , how could the records of the Grand Lodge and the Firsfc Lodge refer to each other in the first-half of the last century ? Now , this itself proves that Bro . Niekerson ' s statements are apt to mislead careless readers .

And secondly , the concluding part of the ' above quotation asserts in unmistakable language , that the record of the St . John ' s Lodge , from 27 th December 1738 , to 26 th September 1744 , was written by the hand of Peter Pelham , and from the above date to July 1754 , was written by the hand of C . Pelham

or Charles Pelham . I have always maintained without an if or but , that from 27 fch December 1738 , to 24 th July 1754 , it was written by Charles , or in other words , that there is not a single line , word or letter in that St . John ' s Lodge record that was

written by the hand of Peter Pelham . Nay , more , Peter Pelham died in 1751 ; and I am sure that not a word was written in the record until a year or more after Peter Pelham was buried . In short , I maintain that the said record is a transcript of the original record , but not an original record .

I have already stated that some years before the Montague and Montacute discussion—thafc is before 1867 , C . W . Moore printed in his Magazine from the St . John ' s Lodge record some By-Laws , which the Lodge adopted in 1733 ; after he got possession of the said record , he never returned it to the

Secretary of Sfc . John ' s Lodge . In 1870 Moore called Grand Master Gardner ' s attention to the By-Laws of the First Lodge of 1733 . When Bro . Gardner asked Moore where the St . John ' s Lodge record was , Moore answered that he returned the record to the Secretary of the Lodge , and that it was burnt in the

Masonic Temple in 1863 . When Brother Gardner told me what Moore said , I told him that Moore had the said record in his house . I repeated the same opinion to Dr . Winslow Lewis and to all my Masonic acquaintances . Moore died 12 th Dec . ( I believe ) 1873 . A few days after his death , Dr . Lewis informed me that

the St . John ' s Lodge and other records were found in Moore ' s house , and were removed to the Masonic Temple . I went at once to the Temple , and Bro . Nickerson showed me the desired record . I , however , had no time just then to examine it . But

early in January 1874 I did examine the said record . From the title page I learned that a Brother who had been Senior Warden of the Lodge in 1738 presented the book ( a folio volume ) to the Lodge . It , however , did nofc state as to when the said Brother presented that book to the Lodge .

Now , the record begins with the By-Laws of 1733 . Nexfc , to tbe best of my recollection , comes the Deputation of Henry Price , written by another hand . Next comes the proceedings of the Lodge , from 27 th December 1737 , to 27 th December 1738 . The handwriting of the Secretary differs from the previous

writings in the book ; and next , come the writings or proceedings up to the 26 fch September 1744 , signed P . Pelham , and in the remainder of the record the proceedings are signed C . Pelham . There is not , however , the slightest difference in the penmanship in the record from 27 th December 1738 to 24 th July 1754 . The

conclusion I therefore came to was , and is still , that the original records of the Lodge were written in small memorandum books , which were apt to be lost and destroyed , and that after Charles Pelham finished compiling a record for the Grand Lodge in a folio volume , the Senior Warden of the First Lodge of 1738 was

generous enough to present to his Lodge a folio book , —viz ., the book the Lodge has now , —into which were transcribed the records of the Lodge up to 24 th July 1754 . It seems that the Lodge ' s Secretary of 738 was still living , and , therefore , after the inserting of the By-Laws and Price ' s Deputation , by two

different penmen , the first Secretary of the Lodge transcribed his own written proceedings from 27 th December 1737 , to 27 th December 1738 , and as Peter Pelham was dead and buried , Charles Pelham copied the proceedings written by his father , as well as those written by himself .

But I will ask another question . I have already proved that the Grand Lodge could not have had a shadow of a record at least before 24 th June 1751 ; hence , if the St . John ' s Lodge record was actually written from 27 th December 1737 , then

Price ' s Deputation must have been recorded in the First Lodge record more than twelve years before it was recorded in the Grand Lodge record . Now , can Bro . Nickerson really believe that such was the case ?

But this is not all , viz .: Some years after I examined the St . John ' s Lodge record I read a biography of Peter Pelham , written by Mr . W . H . Whitmore , from which I learned tbat a receipt written by Peter Pelham was preserved in the Massachusetts Historical Library . I called at the said library and traced a facsimile of Peter Pelham ' s signature , and I believe a