-
Articles/Ads
Article OBEDIENCE TO THE CONSTITUTIONS. Page 1 of 2 Article OBEDIENCE TO THE CONSTITUTIONS. Page 1 of 2 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Obedience To The Constitutions.
OBEDIENCE TO THE CONSTITUTIONS .
IT is very desirable we should call the attention of our readers to a letter addressed by Bro . John Havers to onr London Masonic contemporary on the recent purchase by the Board of General Purposes of certain premises contiguous to Freemasons' Hall . The letter was published
last week , and dealt with " a statement made by the President of the Board of General Purposes at Grand Lodge " on the 1 st instant , that statement being to the effect " that there was some sort of precedent for the purchase of property by the Board of General Purposes without the
previous sanction of Grand Lodge , in what was done b y me , and by those I had the honour of presiding over , in 1857 or thereabouts . " Bro . Havers , with whom , on the score of the feeble state of his health , all brethren will unaffectedly sympathise , carefullv limits himself to sabino *
that he has " BO recollection of " any such precedent ; and he adds , " nor do I think it possible with my feelings on the subject , and with my determination never to break the laws of our Order , that , either while I was President of
the Board of General Purposes , or while I was Chairman of the Bnilding Committee , either of those bodies made any purchase of land or houses without the sanction of Grand Lodge having been previously obtained . " Bro . Havers invites correction in the event of his
havinomade any mistake ; but we hardly think it likel y he has erred , when we bear in mind what was stated in the Report of the Committee appointed in March last to investigate the circumstances connected with the late purchase of premises . It seems that two instances
which occurred in the course of the aforesaid year of 1857 " were brought to the notice of the Committee , " as they were supposed to be of a somewhat similar nature to the case which had led to the inquiry then under consideration ; but—and it is well to note this with something like
exact circumstance—the Committee are reported to have found that the surroundings of the cases " differed so materially from the present that they could not fairl y be considered as precedents for warranting the course now adopted , nor did it appear that , in these instances , were they
present to the Board of General Purposes when it was resolved to purchase the property in question . " This report , which , be it remembered , is signed by the M . W . Pro G . M ., the Dep . G . M ., and , more important still in a legal sense , by Bro . G . Registrar and Bro . Philbriek , Q . C , thus in
great measure confirms the recollection of Bro . Havers , that during his Presidency of the Board of General Purposes nothing was done by that body which could be interpreted by the present Board as justifying its irregular purchase of certain properties .
We confess we are not deeply impressed with the wisdom exhibited by the Board of General Purposes in the conduct of the important business entrusted to its charge . We have often noted with a keen sense of the ridiculous how
urgent the Board is m all matters of a tnvial character ; how instant it is in censuring what is almost unworthy of rebuke , while it passes over unnoticed the most serious shortcomings . We are of those who think the law should be obeyed in the letter as well as in the spirit , but we do
not think a slig ht dereliction of duty in respect of the former should be visited with a considerable punishment , while a flagrant apostasy from Masonic principle is entirely overlooked . But the shortcomings we have in mind in this connection are as nothing compared with the offence of
Obedience To The Constitutions.
which the Board has been lately found virtually guilty by a special Committee of Inquiry , consisting of some of the most eminent and distinguished members of the Fraternity . This Committee has very properly ruled that the laws of the Craft must be implicitly obeyed , but is it not
most deplorable that this ruling should have been found necessary in the case of the Board of General Purposes , which is presumably the correct and faithful expositor of our Constitutions ? If the Board is itself indifferent to the requirements of the law it is called upon to administer ,
what likelihood is there of any respect being paid to the exposition of that law in other cases . What must the Craft think of a tribunal which one day fines a Lodge for a slight oversight , and the next day drives a coach and six through our Constitutions ? The plea that in
the latter case it was actuated by bona fides is an absurdity . It is a matter of course that when the Board purchased the property in question it was actuated by good faith , and a resolution to do its best for- the interests of the Craft it represented . But such a recognition of bona fides is in no
wise calculated to impress either ourselves or our readers with a very favourable idea of the common sense exhibited , and that after all is the chief pre-requisite in the case of a judicial body . But the Board of General Purposes may have been
advised that , in addition to its undoubted bona fides , it had common sense and legal competence on its side . But , says Bro , Havers , " I know that he "—that is , the G . Registrar , who is constitutionally the Board ' s legal adviser— " was not consulted . " This , indeed , is borne out by the
constitution of the Committee of Inquiry which , if Bro . Mclntyre had officially endorsed the action of the Board , would hardly have included that distinguished Brother among its members . Still more remarkable is the statement in the third paragraph of Bro . Havers's letter , to the effect that the
purchase was completed " without the Knowledge or sanction of the Trustees . " It ] will , however , be better that we should quote this important paragraph in its integrity . Says Bro . Havers : " Without in any way casting a shadow of doubt on the bona fides of the Board , I must acknowledge that I
was astonished when I heard of the purchase of so large a property having been made without the authority of Grand Lodge , and I may add that what astonished me most was , how the money was obtained , or the stock sold out to pay for it without the knowledge or sanction of the Trustees" It
will be seen from this that the departure of the Board of General Purposes from constitutional usage is an error of the very gravest character . To urge in defence of such misconduct that the Board was actuated by bona fides is to enunciate a truism . No one , as we have before suggested ,
for one moment imagines the Board were influenced by any other motive . A man may plead that he broke the bonds of discipline from the best of motives ; but though the plea may extenuate in some slight degree , it cannot excuse , his conduct .
It seems to us that Sir J . B . Monckton , in his speech in Grand Lodge , instead of strengthening tbe case of his Board , made it decidedly weaker , when he took exception to that portion of the Committee ' s Report which referred to the instances of 1857 . The Committee reported thafc
the circumstances in these cases differed materiall y from those in the case under consideration , and the natural inference is that , such being so , those instances could nofc be regarded as precedents . Sir J . B . Monckton is reported to have said that , " if they "—the present Board— " did consider those cases , it appeared to him and several
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Obedience To The Constitutions.
OBEDIENCE TO THE CONSTITUTIONS .
IT is very desirable we should call the attention of our readers to a letter addressed by Bro . John Havers to onr London Masonic contemporary on the recent purchase by the Board of General Purposes of certain premises contiguous to Freemasons' Hall . The letter was published
last week , and dealt with " a statement made by the President of the Board of General Purposes at Grand Lodge " on the 1 st instant , that statement being to the effect " that there was some sort of precedent for the purchase of property by the Board of General Purposes without the
previous sanction of Grand Lodge , in what was done b y me , and by those I had the honour of presiding over , in 1857 or thereabouts . " Bro . Havers , with whom , on the score of the feeble state of his health , all brethren will unaffectedly sympathise , carefullv limits himself to sabino *
that he has " BO recollection of " any such precedent ; and he adds , " nor do I think it possible with my feelings on the subject , and with my determination never to break the laws of our Order , that , either while I was President of
the Board of General Purposes , or while I was Chairman of the Bnilding Committee , either of those bodies made any purchase of land or houses without the sanction of Grand Lodge having been previously obtained . " Bro . Havers invites correction in the event of his
havinomade any mistake ; but we hardly think it likel y he has erred , when we bear in mind what was stated in the Report of the Committee appointed in March last to investigate the circumstances connected with the late purchase of premises . It seems that two instances
which occurred in the course of the aforesaid year of 1857 " were brought to the notice of the Committee , " as they were supposed to be of a somewhat similar nature to the case which had led to the inquiry then under consideration ; but—and it is well to note this with something like
exact circumstance—the Committee are reported to have found that the surroundings of the cases " differed so materially from the present that they could not fairl y be considered as precedents for warranting the course now adopted , nor did it appear that , in these instances , were they
present to the Board of General Purposes when it was resolved to purchase the property in question . " This report , which , be it remembered , is signed by the M . W . Pro G . M ., the Dep . G . M ., and , more important still in a legal sense , by Bro . G . Registrar and Bro . Philbriek , Q . C , thus in
great measure confirms the recollection of Bro . Havers , that during his Presidency of the Board of General Purposes nothing was done by that body which could be interpreted by the present Board as justifying its irregular purchase of certain properties .
We confess we are not deeply impressed with the wisdom exhibited by the Board of General Purposes in the conduct of the important business entrusted to its charge . We have often noted with a keen sense of the ridiculous how
urgent the Board is m all matters of a tnvial character ; how instant it is in censuring what is almost unworthy of rebuke , while it passes over unnoticed the most serious shortcomings . We are of those who think the law should be obeyed in the letter as well as in the spirit , but we do
not think a slig ht dereliction of duty in respect of the former should be visited with a considerable punishment , while a flagrant apostasy from Masonic principle is entirely overlooked . But the shortcomings we have in mind in this connection are as nothing compared with the offence of
Obedience To The Constitutions.
which the Board has been lately found virtually guilty by a special Committee of Inquiry , consisting of some of the most eminent and distinguished members of the Fraternity . This Committee has very properly ruled that the laws of the Craft must be implicitly obeyed , but is it not
most deplorable that this ruling should have been found necessary in the case of the Board of General Purposes , which is presumably the correct and faithful expositor of our Constitutions ? If the Board is itself indifferent to the requirements of the law it is called upon to administer ,
what likelihood is there of any respect being paid to the exposition of that law in other cases . What must the Craft think of a tribunal which one day fines a Lodge for a slight oversight , and the next day drives a coach and six through our Constitutions ? The plea that in
the latter case it was actuated by bona fides is an absurdity . It is a matter of course that when the Board purchased the property in question it was actuated by good faith , and a resolution to do its best for- the interests of the Craft it represented . But such a recognition of bona fides is in no
wise calculated to impress either ourselves or our readers with a very favourable idea of the common sense exhibited , and that after all is the chief pre-requisite in the case of a judicial body . But the Board of General Purposes may have been
advised that , in addition to its undoubted bona fides , it had common sense and legal competence on its side . But , says Bro , Havers , " I know that he "—that is , the G . Registrar , who is constitutionally the Board ' s legal adviser— " was not consulted . " This , indeed , is borne out by the
constitution of the Committee of Inquiry which , if Bro . Mclntyre had officially endorsed the action of the Board , would hardly have included that distinguished Brother among its members . Still more remarkable is the statement in the third paragraph of Bro . Havers's letter , to the effect that the
purchase was completed " without the Knowledge or sanction of the Trustees . " It ] will , however , be better that we should quote this important paragraph in its integrity . Says Bro . Havers : " Without in any way casting a shadow of doubt on the bona fides of the Board , I must acknowledge that I
was astonished when I heard of the purchase of so large a property having been made without the authority of Grand Lodge , and I may add that what astonished me most was , how the money was obtained , or the stock sold out to pay for it without the knowledge or sanction of the Trustees" It
will be seen from this that the departure of the Board of General Purposes from constitutional usage is an error of the very gravest character . To urge in defence of such misconduct that the Board was actuated by bona fides is to enunciate a truism . No one , as we have before suggested ,
for one moment imagines the Board were influenced by any other motive . A man may plead that he broke the bonds of discipline from the best of motives ; but though the plea may extenuate in some slight degree , it cannot excuse , his conduct .
It seems to us that Sir J . B . Monckton , in his speech in Grand Lodge , instead of strengthening tbe case of his Board , made it decidedly weaker , when he took exception to that portion of the Committee ' s Report which referred to the instances of 1857 . The Committee reported thafc
the circumstances in these cases differed materiall y from those in the case under consideration , and the natural inference is that , such being so , those instances could nofc be regarded as precedents . Sir J . B . Monckton is reported to have said that , " if they "—the present Board— " did consider those cases , it appeared to him and several