The 31st Chapter Of Bro. Gould's History.

THE 31 ST CHAPTER OF BRO . GOULD ' S HISTORY .

BY BRO . JACOB NORTON . rpHE said Chapter is devoted to Freemasonry in tho ¦ *• United States . It contains forfcy-six pages , and thirtyone of these pages are confined to the early histories of Masonry in Boston and Philadelphia . It is now well known that np to the close of 1869 it was believed that we had in

Boston an original Grand Lodge record from the year 1733 ; that Henry Price was appointed by Viscount Montague , in 1733 , Prov . G . M . of New England ; that in 1734 his

Deputation was extended over all America ; and in 1734 he granted to Benjamin Franklin a charter for Philadelphia which the Boston record claims to have been " tho

besritining of Masonry there , " and that he chartered a Lodge in Portsmouth , New Hampshire , in 1738 , & c , & c . In tbe beginning of 1870 I made known that the Massachusetts G . L . record of 1733 was not written before

1751 ; that it is as a whole more or less unreliable ; that the evidence of Price ' s Deputation over New England in 1733 is more than doubtful ; that his claimed Grand Mastership in 1734 over all North America was unfounded : and that

he neither chartered a Lodge in Philadelphia in 1734 , nor one in Portsmouth in 1736 . In short , Price evidently had authority to organise a Lodge in Boston , which he did , and the said Lodge appeared on the English Lodge List in 1734 as No . 126 .

Brother MacCalla , of Philadelphia , in 1874 , began by reasoning thus : Whereas , said he , Daniel Coxe was appointed in 1730 by the English G . M . Prov . G . M . of New York , New Jersey , and Pennsylvania , and whereas the

newspapers in Philadelphia prove the existence of a Grand Lodge there in 1731 , and later on . Therefore ( says he ) the said G . L . must have derived its authority from Daniel Coxe ; hence Philadelphia must be the mother of American

legitimate Masonry ; or , as they call it , the Premier G . L . in America . While I have always been certain that the Philadelphia Masonry of 1731 derived its authority from no one—for there is not a particle of evidence that when

Daniel Coxe died , in 1739 , that anybody in America was aware that Coxe was a Mason . As I , in a great measure , insti gated the controversies about the origins of Masonry in Massachusetts and Pennsylvania , I was naturally curious

to find out what opinions Bro . Gould formed upon the said subjects . This being now understood , before I proceed to find fault I must premise that Bro . Gould has not onl y read a great deal , but his retentive memory enables him to

store up a large supply of concise sayings or sentences , expressing true and wise ideas in a few words , and these he generally introduces as texts , as it were , when beginning to discuss intricate subjects . Thus , on page 424 , Vol . VI ., he Bays ,

"It is not as difficult a task to plant new truths as to root oat old errors . " Again ,

" So long indeed as specious probabilities are placed on the same rooting with well attested facts , so long will Masonic history be a ' misleading guide . " , . ,. ; i : r . u , i Still again , ' ; V ; : p $ To those who love to , ride at anchor , ifc may be ; a $ ewi ® $ ti !&

The 31st Chapter Of Bro. Gould's History.

reflection that no Statute of Limitations is recognised in onr courts of literary jurisprudence . " As I heartily approved of the ideas conveyed in the above

extracts , I began to think that Bro . Gould agreed with my opinions on the topics he was about to discuss , but the next quotation dispelled ray illusion . Pie says : —

" The examination on whioh we are about to enter ( relative to the American ' Masonic mother' question ) will , I think , necessitate our following the example of Lord Keeper Bridgmau , of whom it ia

related that if a case admitted of divers doubts—what the lawyers call points—he would never give all on one side , but either party should have something to go away with . "

Now , it strikes me forcibly that however wise Lord Bridgman's maxim may be when a case of property is involved , when it is the interest of all parties concerned to have the question settled at once , that the same maxim is

altogether inapplicable for the purpose of settling historic doubts . In disputes about property , where the evidences and doubts of the rival claimants balance each other , the only sensible way to settle the question is by compromise , but I am satisfied that when historic doubts balauce each

other , a compromise is simply impossible . In such a case I would prefer to confess that I did not know which was right ; and as there is no need to hurry , and hurry is of no use , the only thing we must do is to wait till some further

evidence turns np which may turn the scale one way or the other . Such seems to me the most prudent and proper ., way of dealing with historic questions when the evidences pro and con are equally divided .

In justice , however , to Bro . Gould s fairness , I must admit that whenever he undertakes to advocate some faulty theory he is never dogmatic . About the questions discussed in the 31 st Chapter of his History , Bro . Gould

frankly admits all the facts I have made known , and most of my inferences , too . But inferences , after all , are mere opinions , and entirely depend upon the standpoint from which they are taken . Briefly , then , Bro . Gould is at

variance with my conclusions about Henry Price ' s Deputation of 1733 . That question I shall discuss in a future paper . On the Philadelphia question there is no disagreement whatever between us ; but it seems that Bro . Gould ' s

humane feeling would not suffer him to dismiss the subject without offering some consolation for soothing the wounded feelings of our Philadelphian disappointed

Brethren ; and being deeply impressed with the wisdom and justice of Lord Bridgman ' s maxim , that each party should have" " something to go away with , " Brother Gould consoled the Philadelphians , as follows : —

"It is evident that the Brethren who had left the old world and brought to their new homes a knowledge of the Craft were as much within their rights in holding Lodges in Philadelphia , Portsmouth ( New Hampshire ) , and

elsewhere in America , as those who assembled in like manner in England and Scotland ; and just as in the latter countries the members of such Lodges were accepted as petitioners for written constitutions without their legal status as Masons being demurred to ,

so we shall find that the Boston authorities raised no objection to the Masonic regularity of the Portsmouth Brethren , but granted their request for a Warrant in 1-736 . We have already seen that in 1734 the Prov . G . M . of New England was requested to confirm Dr Franklin and others in their privileges in Pennsylvania , thus completing the parallel ; " 1 ' . , ¦ ¦

) i , . c , ;; . ' .. . •* . £ !> - ' ' ¦ : ' \ ¦ < ¦ ' > - •¦ ^ ;^ o ^ , Jf ^ g ' abayeL ^ V ^ TO ' c 0 ^ ol'fc to my Philadelphian Ifrgfh / re . ^^ but-the fact that jWflpli , ^^ him in his privi-^^ j ^ o ^ m pon (^^ ie ^^^^ M ^ . TdH not'deem'his bwn