Brother Sadler's Answer To Bro. Jacob Norton's

Bro . Norton in his " Comments" has given an example of this license in the name of " Heselfcine , " Dermott ' s formidable opponent , —which I find he persists in spelling Jlesseltine , whereas I have adopted the same method as the

owner . In my opinion ifc would be almost as absurd on my part to suggest that Bro . Norton purposely misspelt this name , in order to avoid an indictment for forgery , as it is for him to suggest that Dermott misspelt the name of Lord Blessington for a similar reason .

I found , on examining tho Will of the widow of Lord Blessington , that she invariably signed it " E . Blesinton , and that wherever her late husband is mentioned in the

document the name is spelt in the same way ; this 1 take to be pretty conclusive evidence that Dermott was not , in this instance at all events , a forger . If this is not sufficient to satisfy Bro . Norton , I have much pleasure in

presenting him with facsimiles of the signatures of Lord Blesinton . The one of 1759 is copied from the Warrant of that date , and the other is copied from his lordship ' s will , in Dublin .

/ Jt ^ tsTl ^& h ^ . fj > S $ / JltfSX'foK 4769 ,

I sincerely hope , for the credit of our Order , that we have now heard the last of this pitiful slander , which , ori ginating in malicious rivalry more than a century ago , Bro . Norton has done his utmost to perpetuate , for want , I presume , of a more solid argument with which to support his peculiar

views . Bro . Norton seems to have taken an infinite deal of pains to prove that Laurence Dermott was a l ying impostor and a forger , and that he and his associates " had

no right to pretend to antiquity , or to the name of Ancients ; " indeed this is the snbstance of the whole of his " Comments . " I cannot find one word either in support of the old " Secession fiction , " or in opposition to my new

theory of the " origin of the Ancients ; " hence I am placed in a somewhat difficult position , for I am at a loss to know whether he assents to that theory , or whether he rejects it . I am sure Bro . Norton will pardon me if I do not attempt

to follow him through all tho maze of figures , dates and references by means of which he tries to fortify the position he has taken up as to the non-antiquity of the " Ancients , " foi-, as previously remarked , I attach very little importance

fco the adoption of this title by the organisers of the Grand Lodge of 1752 ; they probably applied it in a different sense to what Bro . Norton does , and merely intended to imply that they practised the old customs , not those of

the " Modern" Lodges . Indeed , I doubt very much whether they had any knowledge of the Ancient Masonry to which Bro . Norton refers . And so far from making myself responsible for all the sayings of Dermott to be

found in my book , why I should jusfc as readil y undertake to be answerable for the assertions of Anderson , Preston , Oliver , and the rest of our historians ;—they all more or less drew upon their imagination when afc a loss for direct

evidence : —and , moreover , I have distinctly expressed my doubts as to the correctness of some of his statements , and others I say arc "scarcely worth a moment ' .-consideration . " Bro . Norton seems to for . a * ei ; that

my non-secession theory is nofc based upon anything said by Laurence Dermott , or any other individual , but chiefly upon official documents now in existence , and other evidence of a perfectl y independent character , quit **

unknown to former writers . In determining the plan of "Masonic Facts and Fiction' ' , " I thought , whether rightly or wrongly , that the best ancl fairest way would be to examine , in the first instance , the record : ? of the older

Grand Lodge , aud extract every item of intelligence that could possibly be construed into having tho smallest bearing on the origin of the " Ancients . " To do this effectually it was necessary thafc [ should givetheivviewsasfco the origin

and character of their rivals . My next step was to go through the same process with the records of the opposition body , leaving my readers ! o drivv their own conclusions a * . to the existence of reliable evidence of " secession . " In neither case could I find a particle of evidence to justify any such conclusion ; and if Jiro . Norton , or any one else can ,

Brother Sadler's Answer To Bro. Jacob Norton's

I should be glad to have it pointed out to me . There is , undoubtedly , plent y of chaff ' , but very little wheat , and Bro . Norton appears to have carefully selected the former ,

and utterly discarded the latter . The real evidence on which my theory is founded ia contained in tho last three chapters of the book , and these he haa not thought worthy of notice .

I will now endeavour to deal with , some of Bro . Norton s objections and assertions , in the order in which they appear in his " Comments . " Firsfc , as to the adoption of the word " Tork . " I say , in opposition to an

assertion of Preston ' s , that the " Ancients" pretended they were acting under the sanction of the Grand Lodge at York , that they " never pretended that they were acting under any such sanction . " * * " What they really

did was this . They found Anderson ' s York tradition where it was of no particular use to any one " ( probably in the Irish book of Constitutions , as it is there ; and Dermott took that book as the model of his first book of

Constitutions ) ; " aud , with their usual foresight , they probably conjectured that identifying their Institution with the Grand Lodge , said to have been held at York in the year 926 , would give them an advantage over their

'Modern ' rivals , especially amongst the Masons abroad ; they annexed the story accordingly , and embellished their Warrants with it . " But this was an after thought . Bro Norton says , " It is evident therefore that before the

revival of the York Grand Lodge he ( Dermott ) claimed authority from York . " I want to know how it is evident , for at present I cannot see that adopting the name of "York Masons" is evidence of their having " claimed

authority " from York ? If it can be shown that application was made by the " Ancients " to the Grand Lodge at York for authority or recognition , or even tbat they

knew of the existence of a Grand Lodge afc York , prior to 1701 , other than tho traditional one of 92 G , I am prepared to admit that there is something in Bro . Norton ' s assertion ; bufc bearing- in mind how little was known in London of

the real history of the old Lodgo at York , even by the present generation of Masons , until they were enlightened by Bros . Hughan and Whytehead , it seems to me most unreasonable to conclude thafc Dermott had any knowledge

of a Grand Lodge , or even a Lodge of any kind at York prior to its revival in 17 ( 31 . Bro . Norton ought to know that , figuratively speaking , York was as distant from London in 1756 as New York is at the present time , and

as far as I can see , this old York Lodgo was a " Graud Lodge " in name only , and if ifc had ever been known to the London Masons , ifc was probably forgotten before Dermott's time . Even Preston ( and of course Bro . Norton will

believe Preston ) says the " York Constitution was entirely dropfc in 1717 . " The most charitable view to take of his assertion is that the author of it bolieved he was correct , because he knew nothing to tho contrary . I shall therefore ,

for tho present afc any rate , stick to ray text , bufc if ifc be nny satisfaction to Bro . Norton , I will readily admit the "Ancients" had a pretence , which was in posing as English Masons , when , as a matter of fact , they wove Irish ;

bnfc 1 think it not . unlikely thafc when Dermott stated " there were numbers of old Masons then in ( and adjacent lo ) London , from whom the present Grand Lodge of Ancient Masons received fche old svstem , without

adulteration , he was under the impression thafc certain alterations , which I am of opinion were made in 1730 , were really made in 1717 , and that it was from these old , or ante-Grand Lodge Masons thafc the Masons in Ireland derived theii

knowledge . I trust I shall be excused if I omit to notice iu detail Bro . Norton ' s references to " * Masters' Words , aud degrees , Sprafct ' s Constitutions , " & o , for however much they may be opposed to the statements of Laurence

Dermott I am unable to seo thafc they have any bearing on either my theory or my evidence ; I must , nevertheless , take exception to some of his assertions and arguments . For instance , he says that " Dermott was initiated in Dublin

iu 1746 ; " I should like to know his authority for thafc statement . I have been under the impression thafc the brother in question was initiated in 1740 , and it a best to bo correct when we can . Again , I musfc beg to d'ffer from

my friendly critic in his assumption that in 173 : ) the Dublin Masons must have known if any material alteration had been made in the English working in or after 1730 , subs qnenfc , in fact , to Lord Kingston ' s connection Tfifch the Graud Lodge of England . Neither can I see that a Commitiee appointed by the Grand Lodge of Ireland , in 1769 , on Anderson ' s new Constitutions , must necessarily be cog-