Ar00902

Pry * - * r * -r ^ a l W ^ SATURDAY , 30 TH MARCH 1889 .

Bro. Jacob Norton And His " Further Comments "On "Facts And Fictions."

BRO . JACOB NORTON AND HIS " FURTHER COMMENTS "ON "FACTS AND FICTIONS . "

BY BRO . H . SADLER . APART from the admission that Bro . Norton was wrong in accusing Laurence Dermott of being a forger as well as a fool , I see very little in his article of the 9 th

February that has not appeared in his previous " Comments , " and has been dealt with to the best of my ability . I shall not , therefore , waste my time and occupy valuable space by any further attempts to refute the stale slanders

and nnfounded assertions which form its distinguishing features . If Bro . Norton derives pleasure from the continual performance of the operation of " kicking a dead

man , " I should be exceedingly sorry to deprive him of so safe and easy a mode of enjoying himself , although I cannot refrain from expressing my regret that he should not devote his time and undoubted talents to a worthier purpose ,

and one more in keeping with his natural disposition . The imputation of being " infatuated with Dermottism , & c , " and that I have worked myself " into a mere partizan of Dermott and Co ., " has not up to the time present disturbed

my rest in the smallest degree , for , without searching the pages of " Masonic Facts and Fictions , " I feel pretty sure there is nothing therein to render such an assertion justifiable . I simply look upon it as one of those fanciful flights of imagination so common to all great geniuses , and

especially so to Bro . Jacob Norton , being one of the most characteristic and attractive features of his contributions to Masonic literature . In reply to the continued animadversions on the adoption

by Dermott of the title " Ancient York Masons , " I can only repeat that I fail to see why Bro . Norton should be so very angry with Dermott for having utilised this little scrap of Masonic history in the way he did , bearing in mind that , from the days of Anderson down to the present time , we have been taught to believe that we are all descendants of

the Masons who held the first Grand Lodge at York in the year 926 . It seems to me that the proper person on whom to vent his spleen would be the father of Masonic historians ,

Anderson , as he appears to have been the first to promulgate tbe story . Whether Dermott is deserving of praise or censure for having brought it more prominently before the

brotherseverity of Bro . Norton's remarks I still think that a certain amount of credit is due to his forethought in this matter . I should be exceedingly reluctant to say that Bro . Norton is a victim to blind partizanship ancl unreasoning prejudice , but perhaps be can explain how it is that he has not a word of condemnation for Heseltine , Grand

hood is a mere matter of opinion , and notwithstanding the

Secretary of the " Moderns , " the writer of the letter on p 179 , wherein he says : — " The Society of Ancient York Masons , under Direction of the G . L ., was Transferred many years ago to London . " .... " Upon the whole

Sir , your Lodgo will no doubt discover the total fallacy of Mr . Law . Dermott ' s account , and that ours is the real Ancient Grand Lodge of York . . . . " ancl Preston ,

Now , to my thinking , Dermott s offence , assuming it to have been an offence , when compared with these palpable falsehoods , is of tbe mildest description , but the authors of them were tbe opponents of Dermott , consequently Bro . Norton believes in the-n ; they have " fouud favour in his sight , " although he " disbelieves anything and everytoincr that was written by Dermott . " He will not even

accept the explanation given in " Ahiman Rezon , " probably in reply to some Jacob Norton of tbe 18 th cntary . " They arc called York Masons , because the first Grand Lodge in England was congregated at York , A . p . 926 . "

their historian , who says : " Under the fictitious sanction of tho Ancient York Constitution , which was entirely dropt at the revival of the Grand Lodge in 1717 . . . "

Bro. Jacob Norton And His " Further Comments "On "Facts And Fictions."

If Bro . Norton will do me the honour of reading my last reply to his " Comments " he will find that I fully discussed several of the subjects presented in the latter portion

of the articlo now beforo me , including the question of Dermott ' s having joined a " modern " Lodge , which he says I have never disproved or denied .

1 cannot , however , pass over , without an appearance of disrespect , which I am far from feeling , the paragraph which contains the opinion of my redoubtable opponent on the " seventy worthies immortalized by the pen of John Morgan in 1751 . " I make 78 of them , hut a few more or

less is not a matter of importance , since Brother Norton believes " that overy one of them were initiated in regular chartered Lodges , either in England , Ireland , or elsewhere . " I am inclined to think this belief will not bo

shared by many of the readers of the CHRONICLE , in the face of the following declaration , copied from Morgan ' s Register , and printed on pp 76-77 of " Masonic Facts and Fictions , " with the names of the Masters , Wardens , and

Past Masters of seven Lodges who were present at tho time it was written : " And whereas several ot tbe Lodges have congregated and made Masons without any Warrant ( not with a desire of Acting wrong , bat thro : the Necessity above mention'd ) , in order to Reotify each

irregular proceedings ( aa far aa in our power ) it is hereby Order'd That the Grand Secretary shall write Warrants ( on Parchment ) for the Unwarranted Lodges , viz ., The Lodges known by the Title of

No . 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , and that all the said Warrants shall bear date July the Seventeeth One thousand Seven hundred fifty and One being tbe day on which the said Lodges met ( at tbe Turk ' s head Tavern , in Greek * street , Sobo ) , to revive the Ancient Craft . "

That some of these original members were initiated in regular Lodges under the Grand Lodge of Ireland is evinced by the Records , but that fact does not in my opinion warrant their being branded as " rebels , " " schismatics , " and " seceders" from the Grand Lodge of England , although according to the peculiar mode of

reasoning adopted by Bro . Norton and certain other of my critics they fully deserved these titles . The choice collection of contemptuous epithets which my opponent so lavishly and indiscrimately hurls at his

Masonic ancestors forcibly reminds me of an old saying , " It is an ill bird that befouls its own nest . " I should bave thought that respect , if not affection , for his " own

dear mother Lodge" would have induced him to use

milder and more appropriate language when referring to the body from which it emanated than " riff-raff , " " scum , " " charlatans , " " scalawags , " and " perjurers . " It is an infallible sign of the weakness of a cause when

its defender substitutes abuse for argument , and of this weakness Bro . Norton has given abundant evidence in the whole of his series of " Comments " in opposition to the theory of " no-secession , " but as yet he has not offered a scrap of evidence to disprove or even disturb that

theory . It is not for me to dictate to him any particular mode of discussing this question , yet , aa an expression of opinion only , I think he might well have been content with the

true description given by me of the organizers of tho " Ancient " Grand Lodge , viz ., that they consisted chiefly of Irish mechanics and labourers , neither better nor worse

than the same class in the present day . This m my opinion accounts at once for the absence of stability with regard to their five original Lodges which seems to puzzle

him considerably , and for which he can find no better explanation than the " ignorance of their members . " The

absurdity of Bro . Nortons concluding paragraphs is on a par with the cool assurance of his extraordinary proposals . For my own part 1 am inclined to think that my old friend is indulging in a little pleasantry at my expense .

Should I , however , be mistaken , and he is really serious , I will tell him that so far as 1 am personally concerned , he may at ouce abandon all hope that I shall accede to his preposterous recommendation unless something of a

move reliable and tangible character than his " belief " can be adduced in support of it ; and as for the Masons of " Ancient" descent , I have no doubt they are well able to take care of their own interests , quite as capable

indeed as were their forefathers in 1813 . Still , as Brother Norton appears to feel strongly ou this matter I would suo-west that he tries the effect of his new doctrine on his " own dear mother Lod ^ e , " which is about to celebrate

its Centenary . I make no doubt that he would have a hearty welcome , and that his proposal would receive all the consideration its importance and originality merits . I come now to Bro . Norton ' s article of 9 th of March ,