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

five Lodges in Morgan ' s Register , and without entering upon a critical examination of his premises and conclusions , by means of which he tries to convince us that the English outnumbered the Irish by more than two to one , I shall

merely say that I have no faith in his knowledge of Irish names nor in his mode of dealing with the subject . If he refers to pp 124-5-6 of " Facts and Fictions " he will at once observe that I have not lost sight of the importance of

this phase of the question , and that I have arrived at a totally different result by a much more reliable test than that adopted by him ; for whereas he trusted entirely to his

superficial knowledge of Irish names and his own prejudiced imagination , my conclusion is based on an examination of two small Irish Directories , the oldest I could find in the British Museum , with the following result : —

" Having copied the first hundred names in the register , I found no less than seventy-two similar names in the small directories or almanacks before mentioned—and this during a very hurried examination only—amongst the shop-keeping , manufacturing , and artizan

classes of Dublin and Belfast , and I have every reason to believe that had the names all been correctly spelt by the Grand Secretary the proportion would have been still greater ; also that a

corresponding average would be found to exist all through the first register . It will thus be seen that there were good grounds for the ' Ancients ' being afterwards denominated ' Irish Masons . '"

" So much for " Bro . Norton's classification of the names of the founders of the " Ancient" Grand Lodge . While on this subject I will call Bro . Norton ' s attention to another little mistake he has doubtless unintentionally

made . It is not " Bro . Sadler's theory that the origin of the rival Grand Lodge was due to Pat ' s revenge for an insult given by the Grand Lodge to three Irish Masons in 1735 . " The incident mentioned no more represents the

complete theory than one stone represents a finished building , which be might easily have seen had he read the whole book with unprejudiced eyes , instead of skimming it over as he evidently has done , and picking out a bit here and there to suit his present purpose .

My theory is " that the origin of the rival Grand Lodge was due " not to a secession from the Grand Lodge of England , but to a variety of causes duly noted in " Masonic Facts and Fictions , " and I say that the affair of 1735

probably had something to do with the formation of Irish Lodges in London , which ultimately led . to the organisation of an independent Society , differing in its system of government , laws and customs , from the body from which it has been supposed to have seceded .

"Will Bro . Norton be good enough to give his authority for the following ? " Again , of these seventy Grand Lodge makers , no less than seventeen , orabout 25 per cent ., ' were soon after expelled . " This does not quite agree with

my reading of the Register , which shows that out of the 78 original members , three were " expelled " for unworthy conduct , one was " excluded for misbehaviour and not paying his dues , " and thirteen wero excluded for " non-payment

of dues only , ono of whom afterwards " paid his dues and got his certificate . " This covers a period ranging from 17 th July 1751 to 25 th May 1754 , so that they could not have been so very bad after all , bearing in mind the

number of travelling artizans and labourers amongst them . Tbe Grand Lodge Registers of the present day will show that a great many brethren are excluded every year for " non-payment of dues , " but it does not follow that they are all men of bad character .

In thus distorting evidence to suit bis own views Bro . Norton evinces plainly his animosity , quite as much so as when he expresses his firm belief that the remaining 53 of the Ancients' originators were not a whit better than

those whom they expelled ; so far , therefore , from his having proved the worthlessness of the original Ancients of 1751 , in my opinion he has only proved , and that most conclusively , his inability to discuss this subject with

impartiality and strict justice , according to the evidence adduced . . The remainder of the article under examination does not seem to require much attention from me , especially as it in no wise affects the question Secession ; and with regard to the brief existence of most of tho earlier Anglo-Irish

Lodges , of which Bro . Norton has furnished evidence , I can only say that I . quite agree with him on this point , as it materially strenthens my case ; I beg therefore to thank him most sincerely for having introduced

the subject . Had these Lodges been composed of the same class of people as the generality of the " modern " Lodges were , viz ., bhopkeepera , tradesmen , aud professional men , permanently residing in London , it is probable

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

that they would have bad a more durable ft > undntion and a longer existence , but as the Register shows them to havo been compo ? ed chiefly of people who ^ e social standing was

somewhat lower , and whose avocations precluded a lengthened residence in any one place , it is not to be wondered at their first Lodges soon died out .

In Bro . Norton ' s " Further Comment-, " of the 9 h February , he confesses that he was m staken in two of his previous aspersions on the character of Laurence Dermott , and ho thanks me for having proved that he was wrong .

This is no more than I should have expected from him , and yet it seems but a small reward after having written about twenty-four columns in replying to his attacks .

However , I must " be thankful for small mercies , " bnt if I am not in error there are several assertions , besides those he has mentioned , which he has failed to substantiate , and which I have proved to have been mistakes , and as he has

probably forgotten them , I think it right to refresh his

memory by reminding him that he was wrong in saying , 1 . " Bro . Sadler never saw a Warrant of the Ancients older than 1772 . " 2 . That " Dermott was initiated in Dublin in 1746 . " 3 . That I derived my theory not from the records of Grand Lodge ,

but from something I had " read here and something there . " 4 . That a certain letter from Ireland was read in Grand Lodge in 1762 , whereas it was not read till 1772 . 5 . Thafc "All the Warrants given by the Ancients during the Grand Mastership of the Earl of Blessington have somehow

disappeared . " 6 . The " evidence of Lord Blessington ' s private installation rests solely on Dermott's testimony . " 7 . That since the Grand Mastership of the Duke of Montague , the regnlar Grand Lodge had no difficulty in finding a nobleman who would cheerfully accept the office of Grand Master .

I make no doubt that Bro . Norton will , on reconsideration , readily admit that he was mistaken on these points as well as on the two before mentioned , and should he feel disposed to favour us with a continuation of his " Comments , " I shall be extremely obliged if he will give me the

benefit of his opinion on certain points referred to in ray former replies , more particularly on that of the 12 th January , wherein I ask how it is that the brother who was Grand Secretary of the " Moderns " from 1734 to 1756 did not inform his successor , when telling him all he knew on

the subject of the rival Society , that they had originally seceded from the regular Grand Lodge . I find there are so many interesting facts in the concluding paragraph of the article mentioned that , in order to save my critic the trouble of hunting it up , I will here reprint it : —

" He Bays they 'first made their appearance about the year 1746 . "' Do these words indicate secession ? I think not . In my opinion their meaning is clear and conclusive , vi / ,., that theso people " made their appearance" from some other quarter . Ileseltioe was not tho man to have neglected this most effective of weapons had he

known , or even thought of , its existence ; it was reserved for the more clever bufc less scrupulous Preston to concoct and propagate this stigma . I have shown that in 1766 a member of the " Ancient " fraternity was described in a Minute Book of the rival Society as an " Irish York Mason "—in 1776 the " Ancients " were described by a

distinguished Masonic author as " the Irish Faction , ye A . M . s as they call themselves ; " in 1786 their Warrants were referred to a * " Irish Warrants ; " iu 1793 their Lodges were designated " Iri > h , " and in * a pamphlet printed in 1806 they are called " Irishman . " 1 will now add that since my book was published I have seen their

Lodges mentioned in another pamphlet , printed in 1766 , as "Irish Lodges . " And these terms have all been applied by different per . sons , totally unconnected , and uninfluenced by any sinister motive . I shall be very much obliged if Bro . Norton will give me his opinion on the foi eyeing points . If nofc troubling him too much , I should

also like to know his explanation of the reason of a largo majority of the " Ancients" on their first register being Irishmen , and , without going into farther detail ? , how he can account for the numerous points of resemblance between the Irish fraternity and the " Ancients" in England to which I have drawn attention . How it

was thafc the customs , ceremonial and otherwise , of the latter were totally different to those of the body from which they are said fco have seceded , and how he accounts for tho persistent ignoring of the " Moderns " by the Grand Lodges of Scotland and Ireland ; those bodies having been from the first in close alliance with the despised and so-called " Schismatics . "

In my opinion the foregoing does not bear out Brother Norton ' s statement that amongst the original " Ancients " in Morgan ' s Register the English out-numbered the Irish by more than two to one .

WE are not inclined to allow a Mason to be deprived of his rights without a hearing and decision of the Lodge ; at the same tinn we think that a by-law , thafc when a member appears to be in arr *» r 8 and does nofc deny that he is , he shall not be allowed to Vote , would be a just and beneficial one . " Voice of Masonry ,