-
Articles/Ads
Article COLOURED FREEMASONRY. ← Page 2 of 2 Article COLOURED FREEMASONRY. Page 2 of 2 Article THE GRAND ORIENT OF FRANCE. Page 1 of 2 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Coloured Freemasonry.
them is to us a matter of indifference . We see no objection whatever to there being Negro Masons , any more than to there being Mohammedan or Hindoo Masons . It wonld never occur to us to snererest that these American coloured Masons should be denied admission into our
Lodges on the ground they are negroes . We view the matter from a purely legal standpoint , and Bro . Norton must excuse us for repeating that nothing he has urged has , in our opinion , been able to shake tho arguments we have stated .
Bro . Norton lays his chief stress on tho legality of the Constitution of African Lodge . We set this aside , as being wholly impertinent to the issue . Wo said it was no business of ours to prove the legality of their Lodge , ancl that we cheerfully left that duty to the care of tho African
Grand Lodges themselves . Nor have wo tho slightest intention of running our heads against a brick wall ; or to put the matter more artistically , perhaps , of attempting to disprove what we believe to be indisputable , namely , that as concerns the formal propriety of the application made
by Prince Hall and his brethren to our Grand Lodge Moderns , arid the due formality of the charter issued by that Grand Body , wo see not the slightest objection to the legality of tho status of African Loctge . Our point is that
taking the whole of the circumstances of the case , not only in the light we see them in now , but as they were seen by the Americans of those days , tho issue in 1784 of tho charter constituting African Lod o a Lodrro of Masons
was ultra vires on the part of our Grand Lodge Moderns , and the American State Grand Lodges are perfectly justified in deciding that these coloured Masonic Grand Lodges are illegal in their origin . And this being the case—at least in our judgment—we are unaware of any single
circumstance that has happened since Prince Hall began working under his English charter which can make amends for the original illegality . Wero it indeed our business to pursue this part of the discussion further , we might , perhaps , be able to enumerate one or more circumstances which rather
strengthen the initial vice of these organisations . But our purpose is not to provide new material for controversy , but siniply to point out to Bro . Norton and those who may agree with him the exact nature and limits of our arguments as already stated . These we are desirous of repeating briefly on this occasion .
It was inevitable that when the United States achieved
their political independence of Great Britain , Masonic independence should , sooner or later , follow . It may be quite true that neither of tho English Grand Lodges , at the time we are referring to , recognised this as a necessity ;
but it is very certain—to mention only the case wo referred to in our former article—that a letter has recently been published , by authority , bearing date , Marietta , Ohio , 5 th May 1791 , in which it is stated that , " since the war , the Masonic bodies in the different States" had "considered
themselves independent of Europe . This , be it remarked , is not given as the expression of an opinion . We are told without any qualification whatever that , when the war ended , the Masonic bodies in the United States considered themselves independent of Europe . In the same
important document it is announced , quite as clearly and emphatically , that when other Lodges shall be established within the North-Western territory , "we conceive ourselves as being the Masonic body corporatcd within the Federal territories , ancl duly invested with every power
necessary to constitute , rule , and govern the same . " Then there is the statement made by Bro . Findel , of certain Boston brethren constituting themselves a Grand Lodge , independent of Scotland , on 8 th March 1777 , ancl we know , from the records of New York we have so recently been
examining , how the Grand Lodge of that State insisted always on its exclusive jurisdiction over the Lodges within the State . Is Bro . Norton prepared with rebutting evidence to show that the testimony of tho Wardens of the American Union Lodge , No . 1 , dated early in 1791 , is worthless ?
They took a leading part in the Masonic , as well as in the political , events of which they write so circumstantially . Where is the proof that their statements are erroneous , or even untrustworthy ? If Bro . Norton is able to overset
them , then , perhaps , we may feel inclined to modify , if not to alter , our views , but no amount of railing at the irregularities of White Grand Lodges will suffice to change our present opinion . Not two , or two thousand , white irregularities will make one black legality . Some stress is laid on the refusal of the Massachusetts Grand Lodge to grant a charter to Prince Hall and his
Coloured Freemasonry.
African brethren , and this , in the opinion of many , is held to have justified them in asking for a charter from tho Grand Lodge of England . We demur , emphatically , to this view . Assuming that Prince Hall applied , in tho first instance , to tho Grand Lodge of Massachusetts , the fact
must be taken as an acknowledgment that , in the opinion of Princo Hall and his confreres , the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts was the proper authority to apply to for such charter . That being so , it follows , as a matter of course , that Grand Lodgo Massachusetts being competent
to grant , was likewise competent to refuse its sanction to work a Lodgo within the limits of its jurisdiction . If , however , we admit the refusal was a justification for the after conduct of Prince Hall , we open the door at once to all kinds of abuses , and tho maintenance of a supreme
Masonic authority in any State or Country becomes an impossibility . We admit tho limits of Masonic government were not as clearly defined in the days of Prince Hall as they aro now , nor was it clearly known in England , when the
charter to African Lodge was granted by tho Moderns , that the American Masons had thrown off , or were throwing off , their allegiance to the Grand Lodges of tho mother country . But thouQ-h this ignorance exonerates our modern Grand
Lodge from all blame , ancl though it in nowise invalidates the charter granted to Prince Hall , it certainly does not follow that the American Independent Grand Lodges were , or are , required to recognise the legality of a charter issued by a foreign Grand Lodge . As a matter of fact
they did not recognise it , and the majority of them still decline to recognise it , and its outcome , in the shape of the present coloured Grand Lodges . We have said we consider this conduct perfectly justifiable , ancl on this srrouud wc think that members of these coloured Masonic O
_ communities are not entitled to admission into our English Lodges . Ancl a recent event in British North America , if anything , confirms this opinion . A so-called Grand Lodge of Ontario has just been established , in defiance of the Grand Lodgo of Canada , within whose jurisdiction Ontario
is . The Canadian Grand Lodge is warning the United States Grand Lodges against Masonic communication with the rebels , and sundry of the latter have already acted in accordance with the warning . We neither know nor care whether these Ontarian rebels , who , by the way , have been
excluded from all Masonic rights and privileges , are black , white , or brown ; but wo think the G . L . of Canada is right in putting the American Grand Lodges , and the latter right in being , on their guard against receiving them as Masons .
Similarly , we think the Grand Lodge of England will act rightly if it deny Masonic intercourse to members of certain self-sty led Grand Masonic bodies—whether coloured or p lain matters not—which have established themselves in different states of America in defiance of the State Grand
Lodges . We like a matter of this kind to be argued calmly and dispassionately . We think it is a great pity , ancl likewise a great detriment , when anything like bitterness is exhibited by the advocates on either side . Our sole
purpose in referring at all to this very troublesome question was to suggest that our Grand Lodge should indicate the course a W . M . should follow in the not improbable event of one of these coloured Masons seeking admission into his Lodge . Is the man of colour to
be denied , or is he to be admitted r We think ho should be denied . The fact that Bro . Findel thinks otherwise , and that various Grand Orients and Grand Lodges have already recognised the coloured Lodges , does not shake our confidence in this belief . And Bro . Norton must
adduce some stronger reasons ere he will succeed in either modifying or altering our views . We have now fulfilled our purpose of defining clearly the arguments we employed in our former article , ancl having done so , we take leave of this coloured question with a great deal of pleasure .
The Grand Orient Of France.
THE GRAND ORIENT OF FRANCE .
T E Monde JUaqoniiique contains a full account of the ¦ * - * annual assembly of this Grand Orient during the week ended the 16 th ult . Bro . de Saint-Jean preside . ! . According to custom the first business on Monday was the
verification of powers , the roll-call of those entitled to be present , and the constitution of nine committees . Subsequently the President announced the names of the eleven
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Coloured Freemasonry.
them is to us a matter of indifference . We see no objection whatever to there being Negro Masons , any more than to there being Mohammedan or Hindoo Masons . It wonld never occur to us to snererest that these American coloured Masons should be denied admission into our
Lodges on the ground they are negroes . We view the matter from a purely legal standpoint , and Bro . Norton must excuse us for repeating that nothing he has urged has , in our opinion , been able to shake tho arguments we have stated .
Bro . Norton lays his chief stress on tho legality of the Constitution of African Lodge . We set this aside , as being wholly impertinent to the issue . Wo said it was no business of ours to prove the legality of their Lodge , ancl that we cheerfully left that duty to the care of tho African
Grand Lodges themselves . Nor have wo tho slightest intention of running our heads against a brick wall ; or to put the matter more artistically , perhaps , of attempting to disprove what we believe to be indisputable , namely , that as concerns the formal propriety of the application made
by Prince Hall and his brethren to our Grand Lodge Moderns , arid the due formality of the charter issued by that Grand Body , wo see not the slightest objection to the legality of tho status of African Loctge . Our point is that
taking the whole of the circumstances of the case , not only in the light we see them in now , but as they were seen by the Americans of those days , tho issue in 1784 of tho charter constituting African Lod o a Lodrro of Masons
was ultra vires on the part of our Grand Lodge Moderns , and the American State Grand Lodges are perfectly justified in deciding that these coloured Masonic Grand Lodges are illegal in their origin . And this being the case—at least in our judgment—we are unaware of any single
circumstance that has happened since Prince Hall began working under his English charter which can make amends for the original illegality . Wero it indeed our business to pursue this part of the discussion further , we might , perhaps , be able to enumerate one or more circumstances which rather
strengthen the initial vice of these organisations . But our purpose is not to provide new material for controversy , but siniply to point out to Bro . Norton and those who may agree with him the exact nature and limits of our arguments as already stated . These we are desirous of repeating briefly on this occasion .
It was inevitable that when the United States achieved
their political independence of Great Britain , Masonic independence should , sooner or later , follow . It may be quite true that neither of tho English Grand Lodges , at the time we are referring to , recognised this as a necessity ;
but it is very certain—to mention only the case wo referred to in our former article—that a letter has recently been published , by authority , bearing date , Marietta , Ohio , 5 th May 1791 , in which it is stated that , " since the war , the Masonic bodies in the different States" had "considered
themselves independent of Europe . This , be it remarked , is not given as the expression of an opinion . We are told without any qualification whatever that , when the war ended , the Masonic bodies in the United States considered themselves independent of Europe . In the same
important document it is announced , quite as clearly and emphatically , that when other Lodges shall be established within the North-Western territory , "we conceive ourselves as being the Masonic body corporatcd within the Federal territories , ancl duly invested with every power
necessary to constitute , rule , and govern the same . " Then there is the statement made by Bro . Findel , of certain Boston brethren constituting themselves a Grand Lodge , independent of Scotland , on 8 th March 1777 , ancl we know , from the records of New York we have so recently been
examining , how the Grand Lodge of that State insisted always on its exclusive jurisdiction over the Lodges within the State . Is Bro . Norton prepared with rebutting evidence to show that the testimony of tho Wardens of the American Union Lodge , No . 1 , dated early in 1791 , is worthless ?
They took a leading part in the Masonic , as well as in the political , events of which they write so circumstantially . Where is the proof that their statements are erroneous , or even untrustworthy ? If Bro . Norton is able to overset
them , then , perhaps , we may feel inclined to modify , if not to alter , our views , but no amount of railing at the irregularities of White Grand Lodges will suffice to change our present opinion . Not two , or two thousand , white irregularities will make one black legality . Some stress is laid on the refusal of the Massachusetts Grand Lodge to grant a charter to Prince Hall and his
Coloured Freemasonry.
African brethren , and this , in the opinion of many , is held to have justified them in asking for a charter from tho Grand Lodge of England . We demur , emphatically , to this view . Assuming that Prince Hall applied , in tho first instance , to tho Grand Lodge of Massachusetts , the fact
must be taken as an acknowledgment that , in the opinion of Princo Hall and his confreres , the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts was the proper authority to apply to for such charter . That being so , it follows , as a matter of course , that Grand Lodgo Massachusetts being competent
to grant , was likewise competent to refuse its sanction to work a Lodgo within the limits of its jurisdiction . If , however , we admit the refusal was a justification for the after conduct of Prince Hall , we open the door at once to all kinds of abuses , and tho maintenance of a supreme
Masonic authority in any State or Country becomes an impossibility . We admit tho limits of Masonic government were not as clearly defined in the days of Prince Hall as they aro now , nor was it clearly known in England , when the
charter to African Lodge was granted by tho Moderns , that the American Masons had thrown off , or were throwing off , their allegiance to the Grand Lodges of tho mother country . But thouQ-h this ignorance exonerates our modern Grand
Lodge from all blame , ancl though it in nowise invalidates the charter granted to Prince Hall , it certainly does not follow that the American Independent Grand Lodges were , or are , required to recognise the legality of a charter issued by a foreign Grand Lodge . As a matter of fact
they did not recognise it , and the majority of them still decline to recognise it , and its outcome , in the shape of the present coloured Grand Lodges . We have said we consider this conduct perfectly justifiable , ancl on this srrouud wc think that members of these coloured Masonic O
_ communities are not entitled to admission into our English Lodges . Ancl a recent event in British North America , if anything , confirms this opinion . A so-called Grand Lodge of Ontario has just been established , in defiance of the Grand Lodgo of Canada , within whose jurisdiction Ontario
is . The Canadian Grand Lodge is warning the United States Grand Lodges against Masonic communication with the rebels , and sundry of the latter have already acted in accordance with the warning . We neither know nor care whether these Ontarian rebels , who , by the way , have been
excluded from all Masonic rights and privileges , are black , white , or brown ; but wo think the G . L . of Canada is right in putting the American Grand Lodges , and the latter right in being , on their guard against receiving them as Masons .
Similarly , we think the Grand Lodge of England will act rightly if it deny Masonic intercourse to members of certain self-sty led Grand Masonic bodies—whether coloured or p lain matters not—which have established themselves in different states of America in defiance of the State Grand
Lodges . We like a matter of this kind to be argued calmly and dispassionately . We think it is a great pity , ancl likewise a great detriment , when anything like bitterness is exhibited by the advocates on either side . Our sole
purpose in referring at all to this very troublesome question was to suggest that our Grand Lodge should indicate the course a W . M . should follow in the not improbable event of one of these coloured Masons seeking admission into his Lodge . Is the man of colour to
be denied , or is he to be admitted r We think ho should be denied . The fact that Bro . Findel thinks otherwise , and that various Grand Orients and Grand Lodges have already recognised the coloured Lodges , does not shake our confidence in this belief . And Bro . Norton must
adduce some stronger reasons ere he will succeed in either modifying or altering our views . We have now fulfilled our purpose of defining clearly the arguments we employed in our former article , ancl having done so , we take leave of this coloured question with a great deal of pleasure .
The Grand Orient Of France.
THE GRAND ORIENT OF FRANCE .
T E Monde JUaqoniiique contains a full account of the ¦ * - * annual assembly of this Grand Orient during the week ended the 16 th ult . Bro . de Saint-Jean preside . ! . According to custom the first business on Monday was the
verification of powers , the roll-call of those entitled to be present , and the constitution of nine committees . Subsequently the President announced the names of the eleven