-
Articles/Ads
Article CORRESPONDENCE. Page 1 of 1 Article Notes For Masonic Students. Page 1 of 3 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Correspondence.
CORRESPONDENCE .
Wt do not hold ourselves responsibla for the opinions of our Correspondents . All Letters must bear the name and address of the Writer noj necessarily for publication , but as a guarantee of good faith . We cannot undertake to return rejected communications .
LODGE HIRAM . To the Editor of the FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —The question to which your long extract from the Boston Herald calls yonr readers' attention , invokes some peculiarly nice , difficult and delicate points of law , which it ia not verv eaav to decide upon , and about which opinions will
doubtless vary greatly . The old legal adage , " ceesante rationo cessat lex , " may apply to this serious question of the Charters very forcibly indeed . The Charter of Recognition by the Grand Lodge of Connecticut of 1789 being withdrawn or cancelled , how does that act
affect tbe undoubtedly legal authority of Oxnard ' s original Charter ? Is it revived thereby ? Does the surrender of 1789 do away entirely with the clear rights nnder the Charter of 1750 ?
Or if the 1789 Charter ia out of the way , iathe Charter of 1750 good again ? These questions will assuredly be raised out of this difficulty , and they each and all require attention and answer . It is no nse seeking by high falutin ' , or angry decrees of
excommunication and non-interconrse , to silence all pleas and difficulties once for all by " Force Majeure . " But the matter requires very serious consideration , not only in the interests of Hiram Lodge , but of universal Freemasonry . The Boston Herald is utterly wrong in saying that the English Grand Lodge endorses entirely the
American doctrine of State Grand Lodge supremacy . There is a great difference between Warranted Lodges , at the timo of Grand Lodge Recognition , and of new Lodges to be warranted subsequently . In the case of Canada , the Grand Lodge of England reserved , and the Graud Lodge of Canada acknowledged , the rights
and status of the Montreal Lodges , and the Grand Lodge of England has by an unanimous vote refused to compel them to disavow their parent Grand Lodge , and properly so . Indeed , on this question there is by no means universal agreement in America itself . It will be , therefore , a very neat little puzzle for Masonic students
and jurists , how far , ipso facto , and from tbe necessity of the case , the rights of an original lawful Charter revive or not from tbe cancelling of a Charter of Recognition , & c . I confess , according to my understanding of Masonic law , precedent , and custom , nothing tbe Grand Lodge of Connecticut can do , can legally take away the
originally inherent rights of Hiram Lodge , or its Lodge life , and work under an admittedly lawful Charter . That Charter may have been absorbed , pro tanto , in the Grand Lodge of Connecticut , as long as the compact existed ; for there is a
compact , let ns always remember , as between the two parties ; but if the compact ceases , the original Charter comes to life again . As an illustration , supposing the Grand Lodge of Connecticut dissolved itself , does any one mean to contend that Hiram Lodge could not work under Oxnard's Charter ? Yours fraternally . LEX .
PHILADELPHIAN CLAIMS . To the Editor of the FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE . DBAK SIR AND BROTHER , —I do not see that Bro . Norton ' s letter in your columns of the Gth much affects the question at issue . The choosing of the two Wardens is not necessarily in opposition
to appointing the Deputy Grand Master , thongh it may be so . They were loose in their terminology in those old days . Indeed , as I view the question historically and actually , it matters little to Philadel . phia which solution of the puzzle be correct , since in nothing after all is the Philadelphian Primacy shaken or affected .
It is quite possible that Franklin was in i gnorance of Coxe ' s Patent , and that his words refer to anterior customs and privileges even . Bat if BO , that only throws ns back on immemorial usage or ¦ peoial privileges existing in some form and in some way . But
whence ? How ? Here is the enigma ; and until we answer these questions the actual origin of Pennsylvanian Masonry mnst remain in doubt and debate . If the Election in 1731 was only the repetition of a previous act ,
then it is clear we mnst seek somewhere else for the first beginnings of Masonic life in Philadelphia , and not go to Coxe ' s Patent at all . It will be curious if in consequence of this discussion of Bro . Norton ' s criticisms , it should result in placing the claims of Philadel . phia on a firmer basis than ever .
One more remark . What does Bro . Norton mean by his last words P Does he really mean us to understand that he considers the writer , or irnnscriber , whoever he may have been , of the Masonio paaan in 1390 , and of which similar passages are found in well-known
manuscripts of 1420 and 1450 , & c , a charlatan , or to whom does he refer ? I really cannot understand what he means by such a sentence . Perhaps he will kindly explain in your columns . Tours fraternally , A STUDENT OF BRO . GOULD ' HHTORT .
Notes For Masonic Students.
Notes For Masonic Students .
4—THE PATENT OF STEPHEN MOWN . I SAID before that tbe question of the Patent itself was one of serious , nay peculiar difficulty . Indeed the facts in themselves constitute a climax of critical diffi . oulty . For Delahogue ' s copy is a translation into French from Long ' s Register , whioh must have been translated into English from the
original Patent . De Grasse ' s copy ia a somewhat careless copy , apparently of Delahogue's ; and this copy has been followed by Dazard , Thory , Kioss , Vassal , and many more . Daruty , however , prefers very sensibly the certified copy by Bro .
Albert Pike 1877 , of Delahogue's translation , and whioh differs in some points from those which are often quoted in controversy . Kloaa relied apparently on Dazard ' s copy , whioh as I have said before , ia not quite correct . Remarks have been not unnaturally made on suoh a condition of
affairs , and some have gone so far as to question Stephen Morin ' a Patent altogether . And yet thongh it ia not proven where the original is , or if it exists , and there is so far no corroborative evidence of its issue in France , tbe minutes of the Conseil des Empereurs being apparently lost and unheard of for years , yet no good authority after
all has ventured to call in question the genuineness and authenticity of the Patent . It has been objected to by some , rashly and cursorily , but no writer of any authority , as far as I can remember , actually gives it np . It is accepted as real and historical by Dazard and Vassal , Thory
and Besuohet , Kioss and Findel , Rebold and Rasron , Mackay and Gould , Jouaust and Thevenot , Goodall and Pike . Thory says , " Nous en possedens une piece Manuscrite qui en estemanee in 1761 . " Thory speaks here of the Patent of the Conseil des Empereurs , but he did not apparently realise that he was dealing with a translation from
the English of the original Patent . He took his copy from Dazard , who published it in a work in 1818 . Dazard took his , as I said before , from a copy copied by De Grasse , or certified by De Grasse . Rebold finds the Patent " tout a fois authentique et serieux . "
JotianBt terms it" oe singuUer document Maconnique dont nous ne pensons pas cetendant que l ' authenticite pent etre revoque en doute . " Thevenot is of opinion , " e'est la seule piece non suspecte . "
Kioss treats it as an historical piece of great importance . What then does this Patent enjoin , disclose , and establish ? To that I will direct myself in my next paper . SPERO .
DEVONSHIRE MASONIC KNIGHTS TEMPLAR . THE Masonic Knights Templar of the Province of Devonshire held the Annual Meeting of their Provincial Priory on the 4 th inst ., at St . George ' s Hall , Stonehouse , under the banner of the Loyal Brunswick Preceptory , Frater J . H . Keats E . P . The principal business was to instal the V . E . Provincial Prior Designate , E . S . Kt . the Rev . T . W . Lemon , M . A ., 31 degree . There was a large attendance
of Fraters , including Lieutenant-Colonel A . W . Adair , M . A ., Past Provincial Grand Master , G . Superintendent of Somersetshire , P . G . Mark Junior Warden of England , P . Great Constable of England and Wales , and one of the nine members of the Supreme Council of the 33 degree , Lieutenant-Colonel William Long G . S . E . of
Somersetshire , Rev . J . Chanter , Rector of Parracombe , North Devon , P . G . M . Trinity in Unity Preceptory , Rev . T . W . Lemon P . P . G . Prel ., Rev . W . Whittley P . P . Holy Cross , Major G . C . Davie . P . P . Trinity in Unity , John Brewer Provincial Grand Chev ., George Whittley Prov . G . V . Chev ., William Derry Marshall Holy Cross , F . B . Westlake
P . P . G . T ., John Lane Marshal Royal Sussex , E . Aitken-Davies P . P . G . V . Chan ., G . S . Strode-Lowe C . L . Holy Cross , W . Trevena P . G . Sub . Marshal , H . Stocker P . G . Almoner , J . M . Hifley P . P . G . 1 st Ex ., G . R . Barrett 2 nd Captain Royal Veterans , J . H . Keats E . P . Loyal Brunswick , P . B . Clemens P . P . Royal Sussex , J . B . Gover
Exp . Royal Veterans , J . Griffin , R . Pengelly P . P . Holy Cross , W . F . Westcott E . P . Holy Cross , D . Cross Reg . Loyal Brunswick , R . Lavers P . P . Holy Cross , Jas . Gidley Guard , W . H . Phillips . The V . B . P . Prov . Prior Lieutenant-Colonel A . W . Adair , who opened the Provincial Priory , presided and conducted the installations . Letters of
apology for non-attendance were read from Fraters L . P . Metham Past Prov . G . Prior ( who from age and ill-health was unable to attend , which he regretted , and expressed warm wishes for Frater Lemon ' s prosperity in the Office of Provincial Prior ) , W . Vicary the Sub-Prior , J . Stocker tbe Treasnrer , T . S . Bayly P . P . G . T . Tbe ceremony
of the installation commenced with the Acting Registrar calling the mnster roll of the Preceptories of the Province , the whole of which were found to be represented . The minntes of the Last Provincial Grand Priory held in the Province , at Exeter in April 1885 , were read and confirmed . Tbe Director of Ceremonies then announced that the
Provincial Grand Prior nominate was without , and claimed admission to be installed into the charge of his Province . The Installing Officer directed the admission of Frater T . W . L ^ mon , who passed in under the arch of steel , preceded by his Sword Bearer and followed by bn Standard Bearer , carrying his banner furled . The patent of
appointment of the new Provincial Prior under the hand and seal of the Earl of Lathom , the Grand Prior of England and Wales , was then produced , and read by Frater John Brewer Acting Registrar . In reply to an inqoiry from tbe Installing Officer , Sir Kt . T . O . W . Lemon announced his willingness to accept the Office , and then nnder the usual ceremonies took tbe obligation . The arch of s'opl wns then agai" form **
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Correspondence.
CORRESPONDENCE .
Wt do not hold ourselves responsibla for the opinions of our Correspondents . All Letters must bear the name and address of the Writer noj necessarily for publication , but as a guarantee of good faith . We cannot undertake to return rejected communications .
LODGE HIRAM . To the Editor of the FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —The question to which your long extract from the Boston Herald calls yonr readers' attention , invokes some peculiarly nice , difficult and delicate points of law , which it ia not verv eaav to decide upon , and about which opinions will
doubtless vary greatly . The old legal adage , " ceesante rationo cessat lex , " may apply to this serious question of the Charters very forcibly indeed . The Charter of Recognition by the Grand Lodge of Connecticut of 1789 being withdrawn or cancelled , how does that act
affect tbe undoubtedly legal authority of Oxnard ' s original Charter ? Is it revived thereby ? Does the surrender of 1789 do away entirely with the clear rights nnder the Charter of 1750 ?
Or if the 1789 Charter ia out of the way , iathe Charter of 1750 good again ? These questions will assuredly be raised out of this difficulty , and they each and all require attention and answer . It is no nse seeking by high falutin ' , or angry decrees of
excommunication and non-interconrse , to silence all pleas and difficulties once for all by " Force Majeure . " But the matter requires very serious consideration , not only in the interests of Hiram Lodge , but of universal Freemasonry . The Boston Herald is utterly wrong in saying that the English Grand Lodge endorses entirely the
American doctrine of State Grand Lodge supremacy . There is a great difference between Warranted Lodges , at the timo of Grand Lodge Recognition , and of new Lodges to be warranted subsequently . In the case of Canada , the Grand Lodge of England reserved , and the Graud Lodge of Canada acknowledged , the rights
and status of the Montreal Lodges , and the Grand Lodge of England has by an unanimous vote refused to compel them to disavow their parent Grand Lodge , and properly so . Indeed , on this question there is by no means universal agreement in America itself . It will be , therefore , a very neat little puzzle for Masonic students
and jurists , how far , ipso facto , and from tbe necessity of the case , the rights of an original lawful Charter revive or not from tbe cancelling of a Charter of Recognition , & c . I confess , according to my understanding of Masonic law , precedent , and custom , nothing tbe Grand Lodge of Connecticut can do , can legally take away the
originally inherent rights of Hiram Lodge , or its Lodge life , and work under an admittedly lawful Charter . That Charter may have been absorbed , pro tanto , in the Grand Lodge of Connecticut , as long as the compact existed ; for there is a
compact , let ns always remember , as between the two parties ; but if the compact ceases , the original Charter comes to life again . As an illustration , supposing the Grand Lodge of Connecticut dissolved itself , does any one mean to contend that Hiram Lodge could not work under Oxnard's Charter ? Yours fraternally . LEX .
PHILADELPHIAN CLAIMS . To the Editor of the FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE . DBAK SIR AND BROTHER , —I do not see that Bro . Norton ' s letter in your columns of the Gth much affects the question at issue . The choosing of the two Wardens is not necessarily in opposition
to appointing the Deputy Grand Master , thongh it may be so . They were loose in their terminology in those old days . Indeed , as I view the question historically and actually , it matters little to Philadel . phia which solution of the puzzle be correct , since in nothing after all is the Philadelphian Primacy shaken or affected .
It is quite possible that Franklin was in i gnorance of Coxe ' s Patent , and that his words refer to anterior customs and privileges even . Bat if BO , that only throws ns back on immemorial usage or ¦ peoial privileges existing in some form and in some way . But
whence ? How ? Here is the enigma ; and until we answer these questions the actual origin of Pennsylvanian Masonry mnst remain in doubt and debate . If the Election in 1731 was only the repetition of a previous act ,
then it is clear we mnst seek somewhere else for the first beginnings of Masonic life in Philadelphia , and not go to Coxe ' s Patent at all . It will be curious if in consequence of this discussion of Bro . Norton ' s criticisms , it should result in placing the claims of Philadel . phia on a firmer basis than ever .
One more remark . What does Bro . Norton mean by his last words P Does he really mean us to understand that he considers the writer , or irnnscriber , whoever he may have been , of the Masonio paaan in 1390 , and of which similar passages are found in well-known
manuscripts of 1420 and 1450 , & c , a charlatan , or to whom does he refer ? I really cannot understand what he means by such a sentence . Perhaps he will kindly explain in your columns . Tours fraternally , A STUDENT OF BRO . GOULD ' HHTORT .
Notes For Masonic Students.
Notes For Masonic Students .
4—THE PATENT OF STEPHEN MOWN . I SAID before that tbe question of the Patent itself was one of serious , nay peculiar difficulty . Indeed the facts in themselves constitute a climax of critical diffi . oulty . For Delahogue ' s copy is a translation into French from Long ' s Register , whioh must have been translated into English from the
original Patent . De Grasse ' s copy ia a somewhat careless copy , apparently of Delahogue's ; and this copy has been followed by Dazard , Thory , Kioss , Vassal , and many more . Daruty , however , prefers very sensibly the certified copy by Bro .
Albert Pike 1877 , of Delahogue's translation , and whioh differs in some points from those which are often quoted in controversy . Kloaa relied apparently on Dazard ' s copy , whioh as I have said before , ia not quite correct . Remarks have been not unnaturally made on suoh a condition of
affairs , and some have gone so far as to question Stephen Morin ' a Patent altogether . And yet thongh it ia not proven where the original is , or if it exists , and there is so far no corroborative evidence of its issue in France , tbe minutes of the Conseil des Empereurs being apparently lost and unheard of for years , yet no good authority after
all has ventured to call in question the genuineness and authenticity of the Patent . It has been objected to by some , rashly and cursorily , but no writer of any authority , as far as I can remember , actually gives it np . It is accepted as real and historical by Dazard and Vassal , Thory
and Besuohet , Kioss and Findel , Rebold and Rasron , Mackay and Gould , Jouaust and Thevenot , Goodall and Pike . Thory says , " Nous en possedens une piece Manuscrite qui en estemanee in 1761 . " Thory speaks here of the Patent of the Conseil des Empereurs , but he did not apparently realise that he was dealing with a translation from
the English of the original Patent . He took his copy from Dazard , who published it in a work in 1818 . Dazard took his , as I said before , from a copy copied by De Grasse , or certified by De Grasse . Rebold finds the Patent " tout a fois authentique et serieux . "
JotianBt terms it" oe singuUer document Maconnique dont nous ne pensons pas cetendant que l ' authenticite pent etre revoque en doute . " Thevenot is of opinion , " e'est la seule piece non suspecte . "
Kioss treats it as an historical piece of great importance . What then does this Patent enjoin , disclose , and establish ? To that I will direct myself in my next paper . SPERO .
DEVONSHIRE MASONIC KNIGHTS TEMPLAR . THE Masonic Knights Templar of the Province of Devonshire held the Annual Meeting of their Provincial Priory on the 4 th inst ., at St . George ' s Hall , Stonehouse , under the banner of the Loyal Brunswick Preceptory , Frater J . H . Keats E . P . The principal business was to instal the V . E . Provincial Prior Designate , E . S . Kt . the Rev . T . W . Lemon , M . A ., 31 degree . There was a large attendance
of Fraters , including Lieutenant-Colonel A . W . Adair , M . A ., Past Provincial Grand Master , G . Superintendent of Somersetshire , P . G . Mark Junior Warden of England , P . Great Constable of England and Wales , and one of the nine members of the Supreme Council of the 33 degree , Lieutenant-Colonel William Long G . S . E . of
Somersetshire , Rev . J . Chanter , Rector of Parracombe , North Devon , P . G . M . Trinity in Unity Preceptory , Rev . T . W . Lemon P . P . G . Prel ., Rev . W . Whittley P . P . Holy Cross , Major G . C . Davie . P . P . Trinity in Unity , John Brewer Provincial Grand Chev ., George Whittley Prov . G . V . Chev ., William Derry Marshall Holy Cross , F . B . Westlake
P . P . G . T ., John Lane Marshal Royal Sussex , E . Aitken-Davies P . P . G . V . Chan ., G . S . Strode-Lowe C . L . Holy Cross , W . Trevena P . G . Sub . Marshal , H . Stocker P . G . Almoner , J . M . Hifley P . P . G . 1 st Ex ., G . R . Barrett 2 nd Captain Royal Veterans , J . H . Keats E . P . Loyal Brunswick , P . B . Clemens P . P . Royal Sussex , J . B . Gover
Exp . Royal Veterans , J . Griffin , R . Pengelly P . P . Holy Cross , W . F . Westcott E . P . Holy Cross , D . Cross Reg . Loyal Brunswick , R . Lavers P . P . Holy Cross , Jas . Gidley Guard , W . H . Phillips . The V . B . P . Prov . Prior Lieutenant-Colonel A . W . Adair , who opened the Provincial Priory , presided and conducted the installations . Letters of
apology for non-attendance were read from Fraters L . P . Metham Past Prov . G . Prior ( who from age and ill-health was unable to attend , which he regretted , and expressed warm wishes for Frater Lemon ' s prosperity in the Office of Provincial Prior ) , W . Vicary the Sub-Prior , J . Stocker tbe Treasnrer , T . S . Bayly P . P . G . T . Tbe ceremony
of the installation commenced with the Acting Registrar calling the mnster roll of the Preceptories of the Province , the whole of which were found to be represented . The minntes of the Last Provincial Grand Priory held in the Province , at Exeter in April 1885 , were read and confirmed . Tbe Director of Ceremonies then announced that the
Provincial Grand Prior nominate was without , and claimed admission to be installed into the charge of his Province . The Installing Officer directed the admission of Frater T . W . L ^ mon , who passed in under the arch of steel , preceded by his Sword Bearer and followed by bn Standard Bearer , carrying his banner furled . The patent of
appointment of the new Provincial Prior under the hand and seal of the Earl of Lathom , the Grand Prior of England and Wales , was then produced , and read by Frater John Brewer Acting Registrar . In reply to an inqoiry from tbe Installing Officer , Sir Kt . T . O . W . Lemon announced his willingness to accept the Office , and then nnder the usual ceremonies took tbe obligation . The arch of s'opl wns then agai" form **