-
Articles/Ads
Article CORRESPONDENCE. ← Page 2 of 2 Article CORRESPONDENCE. Page 2 of 2
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Correspondence.
However , I have stated enough for my purpose , whioh is to show that Bro . Yarker mi ght have avoided this further error into which ho has fallen . In the long letter which Bro . Yarker sent you after I had reviewed his lecture , he was pleased to ridicule a statement of mine thnt tho
"Ancient" Masons were really " Modern , " and the " Moderns " " Ancients . " As the term " Ancient " appears to bave been again used by Brother Yarker to indicate what he supposes to be the " Schismatio" Lodges , let me fortify myself by the following extract from tho preface to Bro . Gould ' s " Atholl Lod » es " : —" The
junior of these two bodies "—that is , " the Grand Lodges established respectively in 1717 and 1753 '— " originated in the secession of numerous brethren abont 1738 , from the parent Grand Lodgo of English Masonry , which they averred had adopted new plans and departed from the old landmarks . The Schismatics , therefore , in
reverting ( as they alleged ) to the ' old forms , ' arrogated to themselves the title of ' Ancient' Masons , bestowing npou their rivals the odious appellation of ' Moderns , ' and by those distinctive epithets they have since been generally described . " I must apologise for laying so much stress on what is in fact part of the A B C of Masonio
History , but though I have deolined to enter into any controversy with Bro . Yarker , I could not stand idly by while ho was floundering about in a sea of difficulties , although they were mostly of his own oreation , without lending him a helping hand . So you must accept my good nature as my apology for again troubling you . Fraternally , REVIEWER OF BRO . YARKER ' S LECTURE .
To the Editor of the FREEMASON ' S CHRONICXE . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —The very friendly spirit in whioh Bro . Yarker replied to my former communication with reference to Anthony Sayer has induced me to ask permission to trespass still farther on your valuable space . I presume that , like myself , Bro . Yarker is a seeker after Masonio light and truth , if so he will doubtless see the
justice of the following remarks . The earlier history of Speculative Masonry is obscured by many clouds of doubt and uncertainty . I consider it , therefore , a doty we owe to each other to endeavour to contribute a ray of light , however faint , towards making clear that whioh has been for years , and still is , a fruitful source of contention amongst certain members of our
Order . Yet it behoves us to act with great caution , to be certain of our ground , and not to publish to the world as positive facts what should be merely expressions of opinion , lest by repeating and thereby propagating the errors of former writers , we add to the density of , instead of throwing light on , some of the most interesting events in the history of our grand old Craft . I have no doubt it
was some such thoughts as are expressed in the foregoing sentences that prompted me to seek for further information as to our old Grand Master ' s offence , for , from the confidence with which Bro . Yarker made bis assertions , I had a hope , a faint one I admit , that he was in possession of important information not known to the generality of Masonic historians . I very much regret that it is not in my power
to furnish him with a copy of the document referred to in the Grand Lodge minutes of 1730 , and quite agree with him that its production would settle the question , but I fear there is no suoh paper now in existence , for I am inclined to think it was destroyed , if not at the time tbe complaint was disposed of , very shortly afterwards . I will now , as briefly as possible , inform Bro . Yarker what othor
interpretation I can put upon the minute besides that given by himself , Having taken into consideration the wording of the complaint as well as the decision of the Grand Lodge , and the surrounding circumstances , I am inclined to think that the offence was committed either in , or had some reference to his own Lodge , for you will observe that the complaint was made by the then Master
and Wardens , and why the word irregularities ? . 1 should imagine that to attend a spurious or unrecognised Lodge would have been spoken of as an irregularity . Again , had that been the offence , I feel sure it would have been meutioned in plain terms , for irregular Lodges are mentioned in the Grand Lodge Proceedings about that period , and one at least petitioned to be received , and was received ,
into tbe list of tbe regular Lodges . Why , then , this mystery ? Wh y is the nature of the charge not entered in the Grand Lodge book ? Bearing in mind how scrupulous our old brethren were in all matters pertaining to the ritual , I can come to no other conclusion than that the charge had some relation to the ceremonies ; hence the objection to writing it in the Grand Lodge book . However , the offence could
not have been a very serious one , or the result would have been different . Of conrse , all this is mere conjecture , and must be taken for what it is worth . Now for a few facts ! Bro . Yarker says , "I might have strengthened my last letter by referring to the 1765 List of Lodges of the ' Ancient' Masons . " But why the inverted commas ? Is it a freak of the devil ( of course I mean tho " printer ' s devil" ') .
or Bro . Yarker ' s own doing ? I find , on referring to the magazine he mentions , that the List is simply headed "Ancient Lodges , " * and is neither more nor less than a list of the regular Lodges under the English Constitution , probably taken from Cole ' s engraved List for the year 1766 , and has nothing whatever to do with tho self-styled "Ancient" Masons . How referrinrr to this List could nossiblv
strengthen Bro . Yarker ' s last letter is a perfect puzzle to me , so I will " give it up " and wait for " more light ; " but as Bro . Yarker mentions two Lodges , I presumo he wishes us to understand that they were two of the oldest so-called " Ancient" Lodges . If so , I may as well mention a fact which I imaginedwns well known to every one having tbe smallest pretensions to an acquaintance with Masonic history . Nos . 1 and 2 of 17 J > jyiffi now No . 2 ( Lodgo of Antiquit y ) , and No . 4 Royal Somerset ^ jCodge , neither of which has ever been on tho " List of ' Ancient' Lodges . " Fearing to trespass
Correspondence.
further on your good nature , I reluctantly bid adieu to this most interesting subject , and beg to subscribe myself , Yours fraternally , H . SADLER .
* I append a copy of the heading referred to , whioh I have extracted from tho Magazine itself . —n . S . ANCIENT LODGES . . 4 flew and Correct List of all the English Regular Lod ges hi Europe , Asia , Africa , and America , according to their seniority and constitution . By order of the Grand Master . Brought down to April 19 th , 1765 .
THE SECRETARY OF THE GIRLS' SCHOOL .
To the Editor of the FREEMASON ' S CHRONICXE . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —AS I had no wish to trespass too much on your valuable space , there were one or two points connected with the inoreased salary of tho Secretary of the Girls' School which I thought might safely bo held over , at all events for the present . However , I find " I . P . M . " has referred to them more or less directly , and
perhaps , therefore , you will kindly allow me to complete my say . In your contemporary ' s account of the Committee meeting , Bro . Massey is reported to have expressed regret that Bro . Hedges ' s salary " had not been made the same a 3 the salaries of the Secretaries of the other Institutions . " Now , Bro . Massey is one of those men whom , as a rule , I should be inclined to hold up as models of sound common
sense , and in order to account for this passing eccentricity of speech , I have no alternative but to suppose either that he has been misreported , or that , this being the season for paying people compliments , he employed this style of language for the purpose of paying Bro . Secretary a greater compliment than usual . The known aocuraoy of your contemporary forbids the
former , while , as to the latter , Brother Richardson , who was present , " took the remark " quite seriously , and " hoped it would be so shortly . " I am glad that " I . P . M . " has noted this , and still more glad that he and I are pretty much of the same mind as to the groundlessness of Bro . Massey's regret . I believe Bro . Terry has been Seoretary of the Benevolent Institution about twice as long a time
as Bro . Hedges has of the Girls' Sohool , and that Bro . Binckes 8 service as Secretary of the Boys' Sohool is about double that of Bro . Terry's in respect of the R . M . B . I . Yet Bro . Massey regrets they are not all three in receipt of the same amount of salary , and Bro . Richardson hopes the time is not for distant when they will be . Now , as " I . P . M . " points out , there is , quite apart from the qnestion
of merit , the question of length of service , and this latter he considers " should be taken into consideration in adjusting salaries . " To this , as a bare proposition , no reasonable objection can be taken , and it follows , therefore , that if Bro . Hedges , with five and a half years' service , is worth £ 500 a year , Bro . Terry , with eleven years ' , must be worth £ 1 , 000 , and Bro . Binckes , with twice eleven years ' , £ 2 , 000 . On the
other hand , if Bros . Binckes and Terry , with their respective years of service , are not assigned the salaries I have stated , it follows that the proposal to give Bro . Hedges £ 500 at present must be—to put it very gently—just a little premature . But perhaps I ought to apolo-¦ gise to the Girls' School Committee for thinking the vulgar " Cocker " of my youthful days is an arithmetical authority worth following .
As to the question of rolative merit , it is admitted by every one to bo a most delicate one to discuss , and I have already stated my reasons for not touching upon it . But perhaps I may be permitted to point out , as a not unreasonable argnment , that , if the merits of all three Secretaries are equal—which , qwl merit at least , is the only ground for fixing their salaries at the same figure—then Bro . Hedges
has achieved as great distinction in five years and a half as Bro . Terry has in eleven , and Bro , Binckes in twice eleven years . But if A achieves iu one year what it takes B and C two and four years respectively to achieve , he must be the best man of the three . Therefore , their merits are not all equal , and they do not deserve equal salaries . But by the proposition they are all equal , so that
it follows they must be both equal and not equal , which is absurd . I shall no doubt be told this is very silly , and I dare say it seems so , but the silliness is not of my fashioning ; it results from the suggestions of others who would pay all three Secretaries equally , without giving a thought to the questions of merit and length of service . There is ouly one other matter that need b 9 considered . The
members of a body corporate are responsible collectively , but not individually or personally , for its actions . May I venture to ask if it is at all likely there would be the same liberal disbursement of the moneys entrusted to its care , if a means could . be contrived by which each member of the said body shonld be held responsible for his individual acts ? Fraternally yours , NEGOTII NON INEXPEKS .
The following is the list of dinners that have been hold at Freemasons' Tavern during the week : — 7 th January—Lodge of Joppa , Old Kings'Arm Chapter , Robert Burns Lodge , Grand Master's Lodge . 8 th—St . James ' s Union Lodge , Urban Lodge , Cadogan Lodge , Philanthropic Ball ; 9 th—Enoch
Lodge , Licensed Victuallers Protection Society ; 10 th—Kilburn ' Lodge Bait , Caledonian Society , Lodge of Regularity , Polish Lodge , [ Pilgrims Lodge , St . George's ( Royal Arch ) Chapter ; 11 th—London Caithness Ball , Bedford Lodge , Britannic Chapter , Eclectic Lodge ; 12 th—Metropolitan Rate Collectors .
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Correspondence.
However , I have stated enough for my purpose , whioh is to show that Bro . Yarker mi ght have avoided this further error into which ho has fallen . In the long letter which Bro . Yarker sent you after I had reviewed his lecture , he was pleased to ridicule a statement of mine thnt tho
"Ancient" Masons were really " Modern , " and the " Moderns " " Ancients . " As the term " Ancient " appears to bave been again used by Brother Yarker to indicate what he supposes to be the " Schismatio" Lodges , let me fortify myself by the following extract from tho preface to Bro . Gould ' s " Atholl Lod » es " : —" The
junior of these two bodies "—that is , " the Grand Lodges established respectively in 1717 and 1753 '— " originated in the secession of numerous brethren abont 1738 , from the parent Grand Lodgo of English Masonry , which they averred had adopted new plans and departed from the old landmarks . The Schismatics , therefore , in
reverting ( as they alleged ) to the ' old forms , ' arrogated to themselves the title of ' Ancient' Masons , bestowing npou their rivals the odious appellation of ' Moderns , ' and by those distinctive epithets they have since been generally described . " I must apologise for laying so much stress on what is in fact part of the A B C of Masonio
History , but though I have deolined to enter into any controversy with Bro . Yarker , I could not stand idly by while ho was floundering about in a sea of difficulties , although they were mostly of his own oreation , without lending him a helping hand . So you must accept my good nature as my apology for again troubling you . Fraternally , REVIEWER OF BRO . YARKER ' S LECTURE .
To the Editor of the FREEMASON ' S CHRONICXE . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —The very friendly spirit in whioh Bro . Yarker replied to my former communication with reference to Anthony Sayer has induced me to ask permission to trespass still farther on your valuable space . I presume that , like myself , Bro . Yarker is a seeker after Masonio light and truth , if so he will doubtless see the
justice of the following remarks . The earlier history of Speculative Masonry is obscured by many clouds of doubt and uncertainty . I consider it , therefore , a doty we owe to each other to endeavour to contribute a ray of light , however faint , towards making clear that whioh has been for years , and still is , a fruitful source of contention amongst certain members of our
Order . Yet it behoves us to act with great caution , to be certain of our ground , and not to publish to the world as positive facts what should be merely expressions of opinion , lest by repeating and thereby propagating the errors of former writers , we add to the density of , instead of throwing light on , some of the most interesting events in the history of our grand old Craft . I have no doubt it
was some such thoughts as are expressed in the foregoing sentences that prompted me to seek for further information as to our old Grand Master ' s offence , for , from the confidence with which Bro . Yarker made bis assertions , I had a hope , a faint one I admit , that he was in possession of important information not known to the generality of Masonic historians . I very much regret that it is not in my power
to furnish him with a copy of the document referred to in the Grand Lodge minutes of 1730 , and quite agree with him that its production would settle the question , but I fear there is no suoh paper now in existence , for I am inclined to think it was destroyed , if not at the time tbe complaint was disposed of , very shortly afterwards . I will now , as briefly as possible , inform Bro . Yarker what othor
interpretation I can put upon the minute besides that given by himself , Having taken into consideration the wording of the complaint as well as the decision of the Grand Lodge , and the surrounding circumstances , I am inclined to think that the offence was committed either in , or had some reference to his own Lodge , for you will observe that the complaint was made by the then Master
and Wardens , and why the word irregularities ? . 1 should imagine that to attend a spurious or unrecognised Lodge would have been spoken of as an irregularity . Again , had that been the offence , I feel sure it would have been meutioned in plain terms , for irregular Lodges are mentioned in the Grand Lodge Proceedings about that period , and one at least petitioned to be received , and was received ,
into tbe list of tbe regular Lodges . Why , then , this mystery ? Wh y is the nature of the charge not entered in the Grand Lodge book ? Bearing in mind how scrupulous our old brethren were in all matters pertaining to the ritual , I can come to no other conclusion than that the charge had some relation to the ceremonies ; hence the objection to writing it in the Grand Lodge book . However , the offence could
not have been a very serious one , or the result would have been different . Of conrse , all this is mere conjecture , and must be taken for what it is worth . Now for a few facts ! Bro . Yarker says , "I might have strengthened my last letter by referring to the 1765 List of Lodges of the ' Ancient' Masons . " But why the inverted commas ? Is it a freak of the devil ( of course I mean tho " printer ' s devil" ') .
or Bro . Yarker ' s own doing ? I find , on referring to the magazine he mentions , that the List is simply headed "Ancient Lodges , " * and is neither more nor less than a list of the regular Lodges under the English Constitution , probably taken from Cole ' s engraved List for the year 1766 , and has nothing whatever to do with tho self-styled "Ancient" Masons . How referrinrr to this List could nossiblv
strengthen Bro . Yarker ' s last letter is a perfect puzzle to me , so I will " give it up " and wait for " more light ; " but as Bro . Yarker mentions two Lodges , I presumo he wishes us to understand that they were two of the oldest so-called " Ancient" Lodges . If so , I may as well mention a fact which I imaginedwns well known to every one having tbe smallest pretensions to an acquaintance with Masonic history . Nos . 1 and 2 of 17 J > jyiffi now No . 2 ( Lodgo of Antiquit y ) , and No . 4 Royal Somerset ^ jCodge , neither of which has ever been on tho " List of ' Ancient' Lodges . " Fearing to trespass
Correspondence.
further on your good nature , I reluctantly bid adieu to this most interesting subject , and beg to subscribe myself , Yours fraternally , H . SADLER .
* I append a copy of the heading referred to , whioh I have extracted from tho Magazine itself . —n . S . ANCIENT LODGES . . 4 flew and Correct List of all the English Regular Lod ges hi Europe , Asia , Africa , and America , according to their seniority and constitution . By order of the Grand Master . Brought down to April 19 th , 1765 .
THE SECRETARY OF THE GIRLS' SCHOOL .
To the Editor of the FREEMASON ' S CHRONICXE . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —AS I had no wish to trespass too much on your valuable space , there were one or two points connected with the inoreased salary of tho Secretary of the Girls' School which I thought might safely bo held over , at all events for the present . However , I find " I . P . M . " has referred to them more or less directly , and
perhaps , therefore , you will kindly allow me to complete my say . In your contemporary ' s account of the Committee meeting , Bro . Massey is reported to have expressed regret that Bro . Hedges ' s salary " had not been made the same a 3 the salaries of the Secretaries of the other Institutions . " Now , Bro . Massey is one of those men whom , as a rule , I should be inclined to hold up as models of sound common
sense , and in order to account for this passing eccentricity of speech , I have no alternative but to suppose either that he has been misreported , or that , this being the season for paying people compliments , he employed this style of language for the purpose of paying Bro . Secretary a greater compliment than usual . The known aocuraoy of your contemporary forbids the
former , while , as to the latter , Brother Richardson , who was present , " took the remark " quite seriously , and " hoped it would be so shortly . " I am glad that " I . P . M . " has noted this , and still more glad that he and I are pretty much of the same mind as to the groundlessness of Bro . Massey's regret . I believe Bro . Terry has been Seoretary of the Benevolent Institution about twice as long a time
as Bro . Hedges has of the Girls' Sohool , and that Bro . Binckes 8 service as Secretary of the Boys' Sohool is about double that of Bro . Terry's in respect of the R . M . B . I . Yet Bro . Massey regrets they are not all three in receipt of the same amount of salary , and Bro . Richardson hopes the time is not for distant when they will be . Now , as " I . P . M . " points out , there is , quite apart from the qnestion
of merit , the question of length of service , and this latter he considers " should be taken into consideration in adjusting salaries . " To this , as a bare proposition , no reasonable objection can be taken , and it follows , therefore , that if Bro . Hedges , with five and a half years' service , is worth £ 500 a year , Bro . Terry , with eleven years ' , must be worth £ 1 , 000 , and Bro . Binckes , with twice eleven years ' , £ 2 , 000 . On the
other hand , if Bros . Binckes and Terry , with their respective years of service , are not assigned the salaries I have stated , it follows that the proposal to give Bro . Hedges £ 500 at present must be—to put it very gently—just a little premature . But perhaps I ought to apolo-¦ gise to the Girls' School Committee for thinking the vulgar " Cocker " of my youthful days is an arithmetical authority worth following .
As to the question of rolative merit , it is admitted by every one to bo a most delicate one to discuss , and I have already stated my reasons for not touching upon it . But perhaps I may be permitted to point out , as a not unreasonable argnment , that , if the merits of all three Secretaries are equal—which , qwl merit at least , is the only ground for fixing their salaries at the same figure—then Bro . Hedges
has achieved as great distinction in five years and a half as Bro . Terry has in eleven , and Bro , Binckes in twice eleven years . But if A achieves iu one year what it takes B and C two and four years respectively to achieve , he must be the best man of the three . Therefore , their merits are not all equal , and they do not deserve equal salaries . But by the proposition they are all equal , so that
it follows they must be both equal and not equal , which is absurd . I shall no doubt be told this is very silly , and I dare say it seems so , but the silliness is not of my fashioning ; it results from the suggestions of others who would pay all three Secretaries equally , without giving a thought to the questions of merit and length of service . There is ouly one other matter that need b 9 considered . The
members of a body corporate are responsible collectively , but not individually or personally , for its actions . May I venture to ask if it is at all likely there would be the same liberal disbursement of the moneys entrusted to its care , if a means could . be contrived by which each member of the said body shonld be held responsible for his individual acts ? Fraternally yours , NEGOTII NON INEXPEKS .
The following is the list of dinners that have been hold at Freemasons' Tavern during the week : — 7 th January—Lodge of Joppa , Old Kings'Arm Chapter , Robert Burns Lodge , Grand Master's Lodge . 8 th—St . James ' s Union Lodge , Urban Lodge , Cadogan Lodge , Philanthropic Ball ; 9 th—Enoch
Lodge , Licensed Victuallers Protection Society ; 10 th—Kilburn ' Lodge Bait , Caledonian Society , Lodge of Regularity , Polish Lodge , [ Pilgrims Lodge , St . George's ( Royal Arch ) Chapter ; 11 th—London Caithness Ball , Bedford Lodge , Britannic Chapter , Eclectic Lodge ; 12 th—Metropolitan Rate Collectors .