-
Articles/Ads
Article UNITED GRAND LODGE. Page 1 of 2 Article UNITED GRAND LODGE. Page 1 of 2 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
United Grand Lodge.
UNITED GRAND LODGE .
WE do nob think tho result of Wednesday ' s Communication of Grand Lodgo will greatly enhance the dignity of that august assembly . It is not indicative of the highest wisdom for a person to be of two minds , at variance with each other , within the comparatively short space of three months , provided of course that circumstances
have not intervened to justify a change of front . In the particular case of Bro . Stevens ' s motion , what was wise and expedient , or the reverse in December last , is , or is not wise or expedient now . It cannot be said that in the interim any new light has been thrown upon the question .
It is certain no weighty reasons have been alleged against the appointment of the proposed Committee . The strongest , indeed the only argument which Bro . McKay , who took the initiative in moving the non-confirmation of Bro . Stevens ' s motion advanced , was simply that as we had gone on for
close on seventy years very comfortably , it was just as well to leave things as they were . The " leave well alone" is undoubtedly a judicious policy to follow in certain cases , but it strikes us that , in this instance , it was a question of leaving " ill , " not " well" alone . Far be it from us to
suggest that Masonry , like other mundane institutions , has its weak points , but no matter how near perfection it may be in its working , it is beyond all doubt there are different modes of working in different Lodges , just as it is beyond all doubt that some of our Masters and Past Masters are not
as competent exponents of our ceremonies as they are presumed or expected to be . Grand Lodge would appear to have been sensible of this weak point in December last . Now it seems to consider that everything works smoothly and satisfactorily , and that uniformity of ritual observance
is a matter of not the slightest consequence . While bowing to this latter decision with the utmost deference , we yet claim to hold the opinion we have consistently expressed that what is done in our Lodges should be done in nearly the same manner everywhere . We attach no great
importance to the employment of the same language always , but the practice in all essentials should be the same . This , as we showed last week , was our idea of Bro . Stevens ' s proposition , and in this sense it "was that we pressed for its acceptance . We argued
further that Grand Lodge would do well not to stultify itself a second time over the same question . Whether the time chosen for bringing this subject of uniformity before Grand Lodge was opportune—whether it was in the hands of the most capable brother—are matters which
concern us not . It is now on record that Grand Lodge thought a Committee of Inquiry , which must of necessity be harmless , was expedient in December 1879 , and it does not think it expedient in March 1880 . So stands the case , and nothing in tho shape of a reason for this violent
chan ge of opinion has been urged by a single Mason whose opinions are of serious moment . Bro . McKay acted conscientiousl y , as ho always does , and , as he firmly believed , in tho interests of the Craft , bnt the speech in ¦ which he set forth his views was neither elaborate nor
forcible . He thought it would be difficult , if not impossible , for Lodges in the colonies to practise uniformity pf ritual , even if those in the mother country did so , but he did not say why it would be more difficult to lay down
a general code of laws in 1880 than it was in 1813 , when the Union was effected . Moreover , it never was contemplated that the adoption of one ritual should be instant , and the Colonial Lodges therefore would have had ample
United Grand Lodge.
opportunity allowed them for adopting any changes in their practice which might prove inconsistent with the recommendations of tho Committee , supposing in the first instance that any recommendations were submitted , and inthe second that they wero agreed to by Grand Lodge . As for tho idea
that future generations of Masons would hesitate about accepting any departure from the ritual in force , it will be time to discuss that point when it is clear there is one only ritual practised by all Lodges . Nor was Bro . McKay
much happier in his allusion to the great Masonic schism of last century , so fortunately healed up in 1813 . So little is known as to that important event that it would be extremely unsafe to suggest that it was brought about by any ques tion of ritual . We know the so-called " Ancients" claimed
to work according to the old institutions , but they were seceders from tho so-called " Moderns , " whom they affected to despise . It is very far from , being clear when the
secession took place , and wo aro not therefore presuming too much when we suggest that the causes which led to it are hidden in obscurity . However , tho question is now at an end , and Bro . Stevens has got nothing by his motion .
As to Bro . Clabon s resolutions for the appropriation of the surplus of the Fund of Benevolence towards the establishment of a Pupils' Aid Fund , they were withdrawn because some of the members of the Board of Benevolence were opposed to them . Bro . Clabon is a man of large
experience , and it seems strange he should have expected that his scheme would necessarily command the unanimous approval of Grand Lodge . If motions are never to be made except when there is a certainty of their being carried nem con , the business of Grand Lodge will be limited to matters
of a formal character , and even in their case , brethren , if they follow Bro . Clabon ' s example , will have to think twice about submitting any proposal . It was certain there would be differences of opinion as to the merits of so important a project . Some no doubt believed conscientiously that the
use of any portion of the Fund for any other purpose than that of relieving indigent brethren , or the families of deceased brethren would be unconstitutional . Others may have allowed the constitutionality of the proceeding and yet doubted the wisdom of the particular proposition
submitted for their acceptance . But to go through the form of p lacing a notice of motion on the agenda paper—and that not for the first time , or without being able to quote a former report in its favour—and then withdraw it , seems to us to be something more than unbusinesslike—it is
simply childish . If the Fund of Benevolence is larger than is necessary to meet the demands npon it , and goes on accumulating , let some way be found of utilising the surplus . But then the question as to the best way of doing this must be considered seriously , not regarded as a kind of
meaningless joke . As so the other business of the meeting , we note that Bro . Lieut .-Col . Creaton was re-elected Grand Treasurer in spite of the opposition of Bros . Binckes , Terry , and others , who argued with a considerable show of reason that by the
appointment year by year of a different brother to fill that important office the Craft was in a position to confer distinction upon some of its most distinguished members . There seems , moreover , to have been a kind of understanding to this effect when Lt .-Col . Creaton was appointed
last year , and , whilst we grudge no honour that can be conferred on our gallant brother , it certainly strikes us as being an act of common prndence to occasionally vary the monotony of re-appointment by conferring this office on others who have deserved equally well with Bro . Creaton of Freemasonry . We congratulate Bro . Buss on
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
United Grand Lodge.
UNITED GRAND LODGE .
WE do nob think tho result of Wednesday ' s Communication of Grand Lodgo will greatly enhance the dignity of that august assembly . It is not indicative of the highest wisdom for a person to be of two minds , at variance with each other , within the comparatively short space of three months , provided of course that circumstances
have not intervened to justify a change of front . In the particular case of Bro . Stevens ' s motion , what was wise and expedient , or the reverse in December last , is , or is not wise or expedient now . It cannot be said that in the interim any new light has been thrown upon the question .
It is certain no weighty reasons have been alleged against the appointment of the proposed Committee . The strongest , indeed the only argument which Bro . McKay , who took the initiative in moving the non-confirmation of Bro . Stevens ' s motion advanced , was simply that as we had gone on for
close on seventy years very comfortably , it was just as well to leave things as they were . The " leave well alone" is undoubtedly a judicious policy to follow in certain cases , but it strikes us that , in this instance , it was a question of leaving " ill , " not " well" alone . Far be it from us to
suggest that Masonry , like other mundane institutions , has its weak points , but no matter how near perfection it may be in its working , it is beyond all doubt there are different modes of working in different Lodges , just as it is beyond all doubt that some of our Masters and Past Masters are not
as competent exponents of our ceremonies as they are presumed or expected to be . Grand Lodge would appear to have been sensible of this weak point in December last . Now it seems to consider that everything works smoothly and satisfactorily , and that uniformity of ritual observance
is a matter of not the slightest consequence . While bowing to this latter decision with the utmost deference , we yet claim to hold the opinion we have consistently expressed that what is done in our Lodges should be done in nearly the same manner everywhere . We attach no great
importance to the employment of the same language always , but the practice in all essentials should be the same . This , as we showed last week , was our idea of Bro . Stevens ' s proposition , and in this sense it "was that we pressed for its acceptance . We argued
further that Grand Lodge would do well not to stultify itself a second time over the same question . Whether the time chosen for bringing this subject of uniformity before Grand Lodge was opportune—whether it was in the hands of the most capable brother—are matters which
concern us not . It is now on record that Grand Lodge thought a Committee of Inquiry , which must of necessity be harmless , was expedient in December 1879 , and it does not think it expedient in March 1880 . So stands the case , and nothing in tho shape of a reason for this violent
chan ge of opinion has been urged by a single Mason whose opinions are of serious moment . Bro . McKay acted conscientiousl y , as ho always does , and , as he firmly believed , in tho interests of the Craft , bnt the speech in ¦ which he set forth his views was neither elaborate nor
forcible . He thought it would be difficult , if not impossible , for Lodges in the colonies to practise uniformity pf ritual , even if those in the mother country did so , but he did not say why it would be more difficult to lay down
a general code of laws in 1880 than it was in 1813 , when the Union was effected . Moreover , it never was contemplated that the adoption of one ritual should be instant , and the Colonial Lodges therefore would have had ample
United Grand Lodge.
opportunity allowed them for adopting any changes in their practice which might prove inconsistent with the recommendations of tho Committee , supposing in the first instance that any recommendations were submitted , and inthe second that they wero agreed to by Grand Lodge . As for tho idea
that future generations of Masons would hesitate about accepting any departure from the ritual in force , it will be time to discuss that point when it is clear there is one only ritual practised by all Lodges . Nor was Bro . McKay
much happier in his allusion to the great Masonic schism of last century , so fortunately healed up in 1813 . So little is known as to that important event that it would be extremely unsafe to suggest that it was brought about by any ques tion of ritual . We know the so-called " Ancients" claimed
to work according to the old institutions , but they were seceders from tho so-called " Moderns , " whom they affected to despise . It is very far from , being clear when the
secession took place , and wo aro not therefore presuming too much when we suggest that the causes which led to it are hidden in obscurity . However , tho question is now at an end , and Bro . Stevens has got nothing by his motion .
As to Bro . Clabon s resolutions for the appropriation of the surplus of the Fund of Benevolence towards the establishment of a Pupils' Aid Fund , they were withdrawn because some of the members of the Board of Benevolence were opposed to them . Bro . Clabon is a man of large
experience , and it seems strange he should have expected that his scheme would necessarily command the unanimous approval of Grand Lodge . If motions are never to be made except when there is a certainty of their being carried nem con , the business of Grand Lodge will be limited to matters
of a formal character , and even in their case , brethren , if they follow Bro . Clabon ' s example , will have to think twice about submitting any proposal . It was certain there would be differences of opinion as to the merits of so important a project . Some no doubt believed conscientiously that the
use of any portion of the Fund for any other purpose than that of relieving indigent brethren , or the families of deceased brethren would be unconstitutional . Others may have allowed the constitutionality of the proceeding and yet doubted the wisdom of the particular proposition
submitted for their acceptance . But to go through the form of p lacing a notice of motion on the agenda paper—and that not for the first time , or without being able to quote a former report in its favour—and then withdraw it , seems to us to be something more than unbusinesslike—it is
simply childish . If the Fund of Benevolence is larger than is necessary to meet the demands npon it , and goes on accumulating , let some way be found of utilising the surplus . But then the question as to the best way of doing this must be considered seriously , not regarded as a kind of
meaningless joke . As so the other business of the meeting , we note that Bro . Lieut .-Col . Creaton was re-elected Grand Treasurer in spite of the opposition of Bros . Binckes , Terry , and others , who argued with a considerable show of reason that by the
appointment year by year of a different brother to fill that important office the Craft was in a position to confer distinction upon some of its most distinguished members . There seems , moreover , to have been a kind of understanding to this effect when Lt .-Col . Creaton was appointed
last year , and , whilst we grudge no honour that can be conferred on our gallant brother , it certainly strikes us as being an act of common prndence to occasionally vary the monotony of re-appointment by conferring this office on others who have deserved equally well with Bro . Creaton of Freemasonry . We congratulate Bro . Buss on