Skip to main content
Museum of Freemasonry

Masonic Periodicals Online

  • Explore
  • Advanced Search
  • Home
  • Explore
  • The Freemason's Chronicle
  • Sept. 29, 1877
  • Page 4
  • CRITICISM CRITICISED.
Current:

The Freemason's Chronicle, Sept. 29, 1877: Page 4

  • Back to The Freemason's Chronicle, Sept. 29, 1877
  • Print image
  • Articles/Ads
    Article CRITICISM CRITICISED. ← Page 2 of 2
    Article CRITICISM CRITICISED. Page 2 of 2
    Article REVIEWS. Page 1 of 3 →
Page 4

Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.

Criticism Criticised.

paper in 1732 called their turn out a Masonio G . L ., that therefore Cox mnst have authorised Philadelphian Masonry while there is not even a shadow of tradition that Cox , after his retnrn , had ever troubled himself with Masonry even in his own home in New Jersey . On the other hand , we know that both Lodges existed in England , as well as in other places , both before and after 1730 , and that in

many cases they styled themselves Grand Lodges , & o . More or less of the brethren who wero made Masons , both before 1717 as well as after 1717 , in legal , as well as illegal Lodges , doubtless came over to America . Governor Belcher , for instance , claimed to have been made a Mason in London in 1701 . In 1730 six signatures were attached to a petition sent to Price from Plymouth , New Hampshire , for & charter

the proof they gave of being Masons was , " We have our Constitutions , both in print and MS ., as good and ancient as any that England can afford . " The said Lodge , however , was not chartered until 1738 , when G . M . Tomlinsou himself inaugurated the Lodgo . In 1750 Halifax , N . S ., opened a Lodge , and they did not apply for a charter to Dermott before 1757 . In 1752 , six clandestines opened a Lodge

in Boston , and mado Masons : it was not chartered by the G . L . of Scotland before 1756 . Franklin himself mentions the formation of such a Lodgo in Philadelphia in 1734 . I am informed that acommunioation by a clergyman appeared some years ago , in C . W . Moore's Magazine , that he had seen in the archives of a Boston church a document purporting that a chartered Lodge existed in Boston in

1720 , but , notwithstanding the statement of a clergyman , Bro . MacCalla disbelieves it , and he is right . There may have been a Lodge in Boston in 1720 , bnt I must see tho document ere I can believe that it was a chartered Lodge . Another clergyman wrote a history of Rhode Island , in which ho stated that certain Jewish Rabbis opened a Lodge iu Newport , R . I ., in 1660 , or thereabouts

and conferred tho third degree there in tho synagogue . Now , that bubble was pricked by Grand Master Gardner , and I have , therefore , a right to ask whether that Lodge of 1732 in Philadelphia was not also a spurious Lodge ? Franklin called it a G . L ., and what of it ? Anderson styled all the kings and prophets in creation " Grand Masters . " Preston called ( in

addition to the above ) all the pre-1725 Masters of the York Lodge " Grand Masters . " St . Mary ' s Chapel Lodge , at Edinburgh , also called itself G . L . The first English edition of Bro . Findel ' s history styles Daniel O'Connell G . M . Dr . Belknop , in 1795 , referred to Prince Hall as the " G . M . of the African Lodge , " and our Boston coloured brethren also laboured nnder the notion that Prince Hall

was a Prov . G . M . Bro . Fort transmogrified the task master appointed by a French King to look after the public buildings into a Masonio Grand Master , and , last , Price not only claimed to be G . M . in 173 3 , but he also claimed to be Grand Master in 1768 , by virtue of his claimed appointment in 1734 as G . M . of all America . The truth is , Franklin was pleased to magnify , in 1732 , a self-constituted Lodge

into a Grand Lodge , which his successors in 1735 , and so forth , never pretended to claim , for , if they had , Bro . MacCalla would have given evidence of their claimed titles . The Cox Philadelphia theory forcibly reminds me of an American lawsuit . Thus : —John Smith died intestate , and two men claimed John as their father . The younger , whom I shall call A , produced

his mother's marriage certificate , to John Smith , properly attested by authorised officials . The older , or B , not only produced no similar certificate , or even a certificate of marriage to any other of the Smith family , but he oven did not know whether his mother had ever seen the deceased John Smith . It furthermore seems that the mother of B used to correspond with a certain Harry Smith ; some

love letters even passed between thorn , and Harry , at one time , claimed that he had married her . B , however , found out that Harry was a braggard , and as no other evidence existed of his mother's marriage with Harry , he discarded Harry and fastened himself upon John . B reasoned thus , "My mother was respectable ( though she was a flirt in her younger days ) , she called mo Smith , my father's name must

also have been Smith . Now , John ' s surname is Smith ; therefore , " said he , " John Smith is my father . " Upon this chain of circumstantial evidence he claimed that his mother was married to John Smith , and that the marriage with the mother of A was illegal . The lawyer of B was what we call in America smart , and was accustomed to bamboozle juries , as lawyers are very apt to do when

their canse is weak . He began with belittling his antagonist ; he found all manner of fault with his opponent ' s method of pleading . " Where , " said he , " is yonr logic gone to , that becanse we cannot produce a marriage certificate that therefore John Smith never married my client ' s mother . " He also spiced and peppered his speech with terrific exclamations , snch as , unfortunately ! lamentably !

misfortune ! non sequiiur , & c . ; ho assured the Court that the more he pondered over tho matter the more favour it found in his eyes , and that he had made out a very strong case of circumstantial evidence , and the tenour of the whole was eminently respectable . True , he said , some links in the chain may be wanting , " but we must not ba

too exacting in tho matter of positive and direct evidence . " And he wound np his speech with a pathetic appeal to the Court to award the estate to B , because he may be the legitimate son and rightful heir of John Smith deceased . The Conrt , however , thought otherwise , and awarded the estate to A .

My critic is pleased to call my disbelief in Cox's fathership of Philadelphian Masonry a " new theory , " while , in reality , the Cox theory originated only a little over three years ago . The truth is , ever since 1792 , when the Massachusetts Constitution and History was printed by Bro . Harris , Philadelphia had full faith in the fathership of Henry Price , and she never as much as dreamed about any claim on Cox , though Cox ' s appointment may be found mentioned in

Anderson ' s 1738 Constitution . But when I convinced Philadelphia that Price never gave her a charter , then , and not till then , she began to setup her claim on Cox's fathership . Now , it seems to me , that she made a great mistake in changing her father . If she is bound to have a Masonic father at all , she ought to have stuck to Henry Price . In behalf of Price ' s fathership she could claim a tradition from time immemorial ; she conld appeal to the record of the

Criticism Criticised.

Mosb Ancient and Honourable G . L . of Massachusetts , to the universally received opinion , as such , to printed histories , and to a thousand and one St . John ' s Day orations made by our luminaries in all parts of the United States ; while her claimed fathership of Cox ia unsupported by any record , or even by a shadow of tradition . Tho case of Orion Lodge , in Bombay , which my critic cited in the

FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE for 11 th August , simply justifies me in declaring the illegality of the Philadelphia Lodges up to 1764 . Thus , in Bombay , the Lodge paid tho P . G . M . for a warrant , tho P . G . M . acknowledged the receipt of the money , and claimed that he had transmitted the money to tho G . L . of England , but the G . L . had not received it . The result was , notwithstanding that the Lodge

had been inaugurated by the P . G . M ., and notwithstanding that the Lodge had paid its annual dues to the Provincial G . L . for a number of years , yet the G . L . of England declared the Lodgo illegal , and compelled the brethren to pay for a new charter , & c . Now , if the Bombay Lodge was illegal , though it paid for its warrant , and the D . G . M . acknowledged the receipt of the money , & o ., by what

method of reasoning can my opponent claim legality for the Philadelphia Lodge or Lodges of 1732 who never claimed to havo paid for their warrants to Cox , and Cox never acknowledged that he had received any money from any Philadelphia Lodges , and the then G . L . of England had evidently never heard about Philadelphia Lodges ?

I shall not attempt to follow my Brother ' s minor details and side issues , for the whole question lies in a nutshell , viz ., I proved that the Boston 1733 Lodge was acknowledged in Pine ' s 1734 list as No . 126 , and , in subsequent lists , the said Lodge is placed among the Lodges constituted in 1733 . Now , all that Philadelphia has to do is to prove that her Lodge or Lodges of 1730 , 1731 , and 1732 were

registered in England in 1733 , or sooner or later , just as she pleases ; and if she cannot prove it , she mnst stop calling herself tho mother of American Masonry . In conclusion , I disclaim my opponent ' s insinuation that I had set myself up a Counsel for Boston . The truth is , I was so disgusted with Massachusetts Masonry , that I have not been inside one of her

Lodges for over twenty-five years , and will probably never go into one again . True , I have always had friends in the said G . L ., and I have made friends who were at one time strongly prejudiced against me . These have enabled me to make the necessary researches with regard to the early history of Freemasonry here ; the oldest Masonic MSS . were in my house for several weeks ; tho Provincial G . L .

record , which , since 1834 , was seen only by three Masons , was sub . mitted to my inspection , and I was allowed to copy it as much as I pleased without any restriction as to publishing it . On the contrary , Bro . Gardner plainly told me , " make the facts known , if they even pull down our pride , " or words to that effect , and in no case have I spared the pride of the G . L . of Massachusetts . No one wi I accuse

me of that , and if I was satisfied with the Cox theory , I would most gladly have supported it . But I cannot bear to see even the bigoted and nn-Masonic G . L . of Massachusetts wronged by such flimsy pre . tences without entering my solemn protest against it ; that is the whole truth . If , therefore , Bro . Hughan , as it is alleged , is able to prove the legality of the Philadelphia 1732 Lodge , I would give him

a thousand thanks for it ; but the proof must be clear , explicit , and irrefutable , and he must not argue after the stylo of Philadelphian advocates , he must not be satisfied with evidence when the moat important links are wanting . Why , with such method of reasoning , I could prove that King Solomon wore a white apron trimmed with blue ribbon ; that St . John was elected G . M . when upwards of ninety ; that De Molay wore a cocked hat and feather , and an apron decorated

with a skull and cross-bones ; that the Henry VI . document , the Cologne , the Malcom , and the Frederic the Great charters were all genuine ; and , in short , with that method of reasoning , I could prove that the moon was made of green cheese . No , no ! Masons have been humbugged too long , ancl too often with all manner of false histories , and it will not be my fault for not making every effort to shame them out of it .

Reviews.

REVIEWS .

All Books intended for Beview should be addressed to the Editor of The Freemason ' s Chronicle , 67 Barbican , E . C . South Australia ; its History , Resources , and Productions . Edited by William Harcus , Esq ., J . P . Illustrated from photographs taken in

the colony . With Maps . Published by authority of the Government of South Australia , and dedicated ( by Permission ) to his Excel lency Sir Anthony Mnsgrave , K . C . M . G ., & c , Governor and Commander-in-Chief of the Colony . London : Sampson Low , Marston , Searle , and Rivington , Crown-bnildings , 188 Fleet-street . 1876 .

Continued from page 198 . Having described the railway and telegraphic communication of South Australia , Mr . Harcus devotes his next chapter to the different exploring expeditions which have at divers times crossed or attempted to cross the Australian continent . Considerations of space forbid him entering at any length into particulars , but his

account is sufficient to give a good general idea of the difficulties encountered , and the advantages that have resulted or aro likely to result . The first of any importance was that of Mr . Eyre , afterwards Governor of Jamaica , who contributed in money and horses over half what was necessary . Eyre and his party set out from

Adelaide on 18 th June 1840 . The onginal plan was departed from , and Eyre , with his overseer , Baxter , and three blacks , determined to push his way across to King George's Sound in Western Australia . Iu spite of privations , and the murder of his overseer by two of the blacks , Eyre pushed on , accompanied by his remaining native , Wylie , and at

“The Freemason's Chronicle: 1877-09-29, Page 4” Masonic Periodicals Online, Library and Museum of Freemasonry, 4 July 2025, django:8000/periodicals/fcn/issues/fcn_29091877/page/4/.
  • List
  • Grid
Title Category Page
ELIGIBILITY FOR ADMISSION AND FOR OFFICE. Article 1
MASONIC PORTRAITS. (No. 52.) Article 2
CRITICISM CRITICISED. Article 3
REVIEWS. Article 4
NOTICES OF MEETINGS Article 6
Untitled Ad 8
Untitled Ad 8
Untitled Ad 8
Untitled Ad 8
Untitled Ad 8
Untitled Article 8
OUR WEEKLY BUDGET Article 8
CORRESPONDENCE. Article 10
Old Warrants. No. 95. Article 10
DIARY FOR THE WEEK. Article 11
NOTICES OF MEETINGS Article 12
SHAMROCK AND THISTLE LODGE, No. 175, GLASGOW. Article 14
A LIST OF RARE & VALUABLE WORKS ON FREEMASONRY, Article 14
Untitled Ad 14
Untitled Ad 14
Untitled Ad 15
Untitled Ad 15
Untitled Ad 15
Untitled Ad 15
Untitled Ad 15
Untitled Ad 15
Untitled Ad 15
Untitled Ad 15
Untitled Ad 15
Untitled Ad 15
Untitled Ad 15
Untitled Ad 15
Untitled Ad 15
Untitled Ad 15
Untitled Ad 15
Untitled Ad 15
Untitled Ad 15
Untitled Ad 16
Untitled Ad 16
Untitled Ad 16
Untitled Ad 16
Untitled Ad 16
Untitled Ad 16
Untitled Ad 16
Untitled Ad 16
Untitled Ad 16
Untitled Ad 16
Untitled Ad 16
Untitled Ad 16
Untitled Ad 16
Untitled Ad 16
Untitled Ad 16
Untitled Ad 16
Untitled Ad 16
Untitled Ad 16
Page 1

Page 1

2 Articles
Page 2

Page 2

3 Articles
Page 3

Page 3

2 Articles
Page 4

Page 4

3 Articles
Page 5

Page 5

2 Articles
Page 6

Page 6

3 Articles
Page 7

Page 7

2 Articles
Page 8

Page 8

7 Articles
Page 9

Page 9

2 Articles
Page 10

Page 10

3 Articles
Page 11

Page 11

2 Articles
Page 12

Page 12

3 Articles
Page 13

Page 13

2 Articles
Page 14

Page 14

6 Articles
Page 15

Page 15

17 Articles
Page 16

Page 16

18 Articles
Page 4

Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.

Criticism Criticised.

paper in 1732 called their turn out a Masonio G . L ., that therefore Cox mnst have authorised Philadelphian Masonry while there is not even a shadow of tradition that Cox , after his retnrn , had ever troubled himself with Masonry even in his own home in New Jersey . On the other hand , we know that both Lodges existed in England , as well as in other places , both before and after 1730 , and that in

many cases they styled themselves Grand Lodges , & o . More or less of the brethren who wero made Masons , both before 1717 as well as after 1717 , in legal , as well as illegal Lodges , doubtless came over to America . Governor Belcher , for instance , claimed to have been made a Mason in London in 1701 . In 1730 six signatures were attached to a petition sent to Price from Plymouth , New Hampshire , for & charter

the proof they gave of being Masons was , " We have our Constitutions , both in print and MS ., as good and ancient as any that England can afford . " The said Lodge , however , was not chartered until 1738 , when G . M . Tomlinsou himself inaugurated the Lodgo . In 1750 Halifax , N . S ., opened a Lodge , and they did not apply for a charter to Dermott before 1757 . In 1752 , six clandestines opened a Lodge

in Boston , and mado Masons : it was not chartered by the G . L . of Scotland before 1756 . Franklin himself mentions the formation of such a Lodgo in Philadelphia in 1734 . I am informed that acommunioation by a clergyman appeared some years ago , in C . W . Moore's Magazine , that he had seen in the archives of a Boston church a document purporting that a chartered Lodge existed in Boston in

1720 , but , notwithstanding the statement of a clergyman , Bro . MacCalla disbelieves it , and he is right . There may have been a Lodge in Boston in 1720 , bnt I must see tho document ere I can believe that it was a chartered Lodge . Another clergyman wrote a history of Rhode Island , in which ho stated that certain Jewish Rabbis opened a Lodge iu Newport , R . I ., in 1660 , or thereabouts

and conferred tho third degree there in tho synagogue . Now , that bubble was pricked by Grand Master Gardner , and I have , therefore , a right to ask whether that Lodge of 1732 in Philadelphia was not also a spurious Lodge ? Franklin called it a G . L ., and what of it ? Anderson styled all the kings and prophets in creation " Grand Masters . " Preston called ( in

addition to the above ) all the pre-1725 Masters of the York Lodge " Grand Masters . " St . Mary ' s Chapel Lodge , at Edinburgh , also called itself G . L . The first English edition of Bro . Findel ' s history styles Daniel O'Connell G . M . Dr . Belknop , in 1795 , referred to Prince Hall as the " G . M . of the African Lodge , " and our Boston coloured brethren also laboured nnder the notion that Prince Hall

was a Prov . G . M . Bro . Fort transmogrified the task master appointed by a French King to look after the public buildings into a Masonio Grand Master , and , last , Price not only claimed to be G . M . in 173 3 , but he also claimed to be Grand Master in 1768 , by virtue of his claimed appointment in 1734 as G . M . of all America . The truth is , Franklin was pleased to magnify , in 1732 , a self-constituted Lodge

into a Grand Lodge , which his successors in 1735 , and so forth , never pretended to claim , for , if they had , Bro . MacCalla would have given evidence of their claimed titles . The Cox Philadelphia theory forcibly reminds me of an American lawsuit . Thus : —John Smith died intestate , and two men claimed John as their father . The younger , whom I shall call A , produced

his mother's marriage certificate , to John Smith , properly attested by authorised officials . The older , or B , not only produced no similar certificate , or even a certificate of marriage to any other of the Smith family , but he oven did not know whether his mother had ever seen the deceased John Smith . It furthermore seems that the mother of B used to correspond with a certain Harry Smith ; some

love letters even passed between thorn , and Harry , at one time , claimed that he had married her . B , however , found out that Harry was a braggard , and as no other evidence existed of his mother's marriage with Harry , he discarded Harry and fastened himself upon John . B reasoned thus , "My mother was respectable ( though she was a flirt in her younger days ) , she called mo Smith , my father's name must

also have been Smith . Now , John ' s surname is Smith ; therefore , " said he , " John Smith is my father . " Upon this chain of circumstantial evidence he claimed that his mother was married to John Smith , and that the marriage with the mother of A was illegal . The lawyer of B was what we call in America smart , and was accustomed to bamboozle juries , as lawyers are very apt to do when

their canse is weak . He began with belittling his antagonist ; he found all manner of fault with his opponent ' s method of pleading . " Where , " said he , " is yonr logic gone to , that becanse we cannot produce a marriage certificate that therefore John Smith never married my client ' s mother . " He also spiced and peppered his speech with terrific exclamations , snch as , unfortunately ! lamentably !

misfortune ! non sequiiur , & c . ; ho assured the Court that the more he pondered over tho matter the more favour it found in his eyes , and that he had made out a very strong case of circumstantial evidence , and the tenour of the whole was eminently respectable . True , he said , some links in the chain may be wanting , " but we must not ba

too exacting in tho matter of positive and direct evidence . " And he wound np his speech with a pathetic appeal to the Court to award the estate to B , because he may be the legitimate son and rightful heir of John Smith deceased . The Conrt , however , thought otherwise , and awarded the estate to A .

My critic is pleased to call my disbelief in Cox's fathership of Philadelphian Masonry a " new theory , " while , in reality , the Cox theory originated only a little over three years ago . The truth is , ever since 1792 , when the Massachusetts Constitution and History was printed by Bro . Harris , Philadelphia had full faith in the fathership of Henry Price , and she never as much as dreamed about any claim on Cox , though Cox ' s appointment may be found mentioned in

Anderson ' s 1738 Constitution . But when I convinced Philadelphia that Price never gave her a charter , then , and not till then , she began to setup her claim on Cox's fathership . Now , it seems to me , that she made a great mistake in changing her father . If she is bound to have a Masonic father at all , she ought to have stuck to Henry Price . In behalf of Price ' s fathership she could claim a tradition from time immemorial ; she conld appeal to the record of the

Criticism Criticised.

Mosb Ancient and Honourable G . L . of Massachusetts , to the universally received opinion , as such , to printed histories , and to a thousand and one St . John ' s Day orations made by our luminaries in all parts of the United States ; while her claimed fathership of Cox ia unsupported by any record , or even by a shadow of tradition . Tho case of Orion Lodge , in Bombay , which my critic cited in the

FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE for 11 th August , simply justifies me in declaring the illegality of the Philadelphia Lodges up to 1764 . Thus , in Bombay , the Lodge paid tho P . G . M . for a warrant , tho P . G . M . acknowledged the receipt of the money , and claimed that he had transmitted the money to tho G . L . of England , but the G . L . had not received it . The result was , notwithstanding that the Lodge

had been inaugurated by the P . G . M ., and notwithstanding that the Lodge had paid its annual dues to the Provincial G . L . for a number of years , yet the G . L . of England declared the Lodgo illegal , and compelled the brethren to pay for a new charter , & c . Now , if the Bombay Lodge was illegal , though it paid for its warrant , and the D . G . M . acknowledged the receipt of the money , & o ., by what

method of reasoning can my opponent claim legality for the Philadelphia Lodge or Lodges of 1732 who never claimed to havo paid for their warrants to Cox , and Cox never acknowledged that he had received any money from any Philadelphia Lodges , and the then G . L . of England had evidently never heard about Philadelphia Lodges ?

I shall not attempt to follow my Brother ' s minor details and side issues , for the whole question lies in a nutshell , viz ., I proved that the Boston 1733 Lodge was acknowledged in Pine ' s 1734 list as No . 126 , and , in subsequent lists , the said Lodge is placed among the Lodges constituted in 1733 . Now , all that Philadelphia has to do is to prove that her Lodge or Lodges of 1730 , 1731 , and 1732 were

registered in England in 1733 , or sooner or later , just as she pleases ; and if she cannot prove it , she mnst stop calling herself tho mother of American Masonry . In conclusion , I disclaim my opponent ' s insinuation that I had set myself up a Counsel for Boston . The truth is , I was so disgusted with Massachusetts Masonry , that I have not been inside one of her

Lodges for over twenty-five years , and will probably never go into one again . True , I have always had friends in the said G . L ., and I have made friends who were at one time strongly prejudiced against me . These have enabled me to make the necessary researches with regard to the early history of Freemasonry here ; the oldest Masonic MSS . were in my house for several weeks ; tho Provincial G . L .

record , which , since 1834 , was seen only by three Masons , was sub . mitted to my inspection , and I was allowed to copy it as much as I pleased without any restriction as to publishing it . On the contrary , Bro . Gardner plainly told me , " make the facts known , if they even pull down our pride , " or words to that effect , and in no case have I spared the pride of the G . L . of Massachusetts . No one wi I accuse

me of that , and if I was satisfied with the Cox theory , I would most gladly have supported it . But I cannot bear to see even the bigoted and nn-Masonic G . L . of Massachusetts wronged by such flimsy pre . tences without entering my solemn protest against it ; that is the whole truth . If , therefore , Bro . Hughan , as it is alleged , is able to prove the legality of the Philadelphia 1732 Lodge , I would give him

a thousand thanks for it ; but the proof must be clear , explicit , and irrefutable , and he must not argue after the stylo of Philadelphian advocates , he must not be satisfied with evidence when the moat important links are wanting . Why , with such method of reasoning , I could prove that King Solomon wore a white apron trimmed with blue ribbon ; that St . John was elected G . M . when upwards of ninety ; that De Molay wore a cocked hat and feather , and an apron decorated

with a skull and cross-bones ; that the Henry VI . document , the Cologne , the Malcom , and the Frederic the Great charters were all genuine ; and , in short , with that method of reasoning , I could prove that the moon was made of green cheese . No , no ! Masons have been humbugged too long , ancl too often with all manner of false histories , and it will not be my fault for not making every effort to shame them out of it .

Reviews.

REVIEWS .

All Books intended for Beview should be addressed to the Editor of The Freemason ' s Chronicle , 67 Barbican , E . C . South Australia ; its History , Resources , and Productions . Edited by William Harcus , Esq ., J . P . Illustrated from photographs taken in

the colony . With Maps . Published by authority of the Government of South Australia , and dedicated ( by Permission ) to his Excel lency Sir Anthony Mnsgrave , K . C . M . G ., & c , Governor and Commander-in-Chief of the Colony . London : Sampson Low , Marston , Searle , and Rivington , Crown-bnildings , 188 Fleet-street . 1876 .

Continued from page 198 . Having described the railway and telegraphic communication of South Australia , Mr . Harcus devotes his next chapter to the different exploring expeditions which have at divers times crossed or attempted to cross the Australian continent . Considerations of space forbid him entering at any length into particulars , but his

account is sufficient to give a good general idea of the difficulties encountered , and the advantages that have resulted or aro likely to result . The first of any importance was that of Mr . Eyre , afterwards Governor of Jamaica , who contributed in money and horses over half what was necessary . Eyre and his party set out from

Adelaide on 18 th June 1840 . The onginal plan was departed from , and Eyre , with his overseer , Baxter , and three blacks , determined to push his way across to King George's Sound in Western Australia . Iu spite of privations , and the murder of his overseer by two of the blacks , Eyre pushed on , accompanied by his remaining native , Wylie , and at

  • Prev page
  • 1
  • 3
  • You're on page4
  • 5
  • 16
  • Next page
  • Accredited Museum Designated Outstanding Collection
  • LIBRARY AND MUSEUM CHARITABLE TRUST OF THE UNITED GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND REGISTERED CHARITY NUMBER 1058497 / ALL RIGHTS RESERVED © 2025

  • Accessibility statement

  • Designed, developed, and maintained by King's Digital Lab

We use cookies to track usage and preferences.

Privacy & cookie policy