-
Articles/Ads
Article CRITICISM CRITICISED. ← Page 2 of 2 Article CRITICISM CRITICISED. Page 2 of 2 Article REVIEWS. Page 1 of 3 →
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
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