-
Articles/Ads
Article THE RIGHTS OF WORSHIPFUL MASTERS. Page 1 of 2 Article THE RIGHTS OF WORSHIPFUL MASTERS. Page 1 of 2 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
The Rights Of Worshipful Masters.
THE RIGHTS OF WORSHIPFUL MASTERS .
WE do nob think too great importance can be attached to the question , What are the powers and privileges of a Master ? We revert , therefore , to the subject , in order that our readers may have before them , as far as we are able to state it , an exposition of the law as pointed out by tho Grand Registrar at the last Communication of
Grand Lodge—so far , at least , as regards the assistance tho Master may call upon a member of his Lodge to render him in the fulfilment of his duties , and whom he may invite to render such assistance . A certain amount of obscurity would seem to have attended this knotty point , not
because the law was nofc sufficiently precise , but because it had not been studied with sufficient care . There has been some amount of confusion between the requirements of the law and the satisfaction of courtesy . The more clearly it is understood what may be done by the Master , the less
likely is it that any heartburnings will be excited . No brother will have a right to feel offended when the Master of his Lodge does that which he is legally allowed to do , nor do we think the latter will be less studious of the feelings of his Past Masters because his powers and privileges are
more clearly defined . At all events , there is less prospect of discord arising in a Lodge , when its members are wellinformed upon this subject , and this being so , we need hardly apologise to our readers for troubling them with this second disquisition on the authority of Masters .
The case which led to the statement of the law by the Grand Registrar will bear repetition . The W . M . of one of our Provincial Lodges expressed a wish that a certain member of his Lodge should assist him in working one of our ceremonies . The I . P . M . objected , and claimed the
right to do so ; and he did so , the W . M . vacating the chair for that purpose , but under protest . The I . P . M . was wrong in advancing any such claim , and the Grand Registrar has ruled that the Master of a Lodge may invite any brotherthat is , any qualified brother—to speak the words for him
in working any of the ceremonies , the words being , in fact , his own words , though spoken by another ; and , moreover , that he may place the brother assisting him either near his pedestal , or in any other part of the Lodge . This , of course , applies to the case of a
Master who is momentarily " incapable of discharging the duties of his office , " but has no intention of vacating the chair . But in the event of his withdrawing , nofc from the Lodge itself , but from the presidency of the Lodge for it matters not how brief a period of time , he clearly
abdicates his functions . In such case , though he has the right to invite any brother present to take his place , it can obviously be only one who is qtialified , and the only brethren qualified to fill the chair of a Lodge , are Installed Masters . We think it important that this should be clearly
understood by our readers ; for , unfortunately , in his very elaborate judgment , the Grand Registrar made use of the words any brother , without adding the important word " qualified . " We have throughout conceded that this was what he intended by the use of the word any , and no
doubt it was so understood generally by his audience ; but it is well in all snch matters to be as precise as possible , especially as there have arisen at different times sundry
misunderstandings on this very point . This , then , appears to be the law according to the latest exposition . A Master who retains his seat may invite any brother to perform any of . the ceremonies for him , and he may place him in any
The Rights Of Worshipful Masters.
part of the Lodge , the ceremony thus performed having the same validity as though he had himself rehearsed it . If he vacate the chair during the performance , he may invite any brother he chooses to occupy his seat , who is qualified to fill it , that is , any brother having the rank of an Installed
Master . Thus far , then , the I . P . M . and other P . M . ' s of a Lodge iu the order of their seniority , have no rights afc all , except that it is only one of their degree who can legally occupy the chair of a Lodge in tho absence , actual or virtual , of the W . M .
We must now consider the rights and privileges of Past Masters . In the absence of the Master , it devolves , in the first instance , on the Senior Warden to " act as Master in summoning the Lodge ; " in the Senior Warden ' s absence , on the Junior Warden ; and then , in his absence , " the
Immediate Past Master , or , in his absence , the Senior Past Master of the Lodge present shall take the chair . " But if no Past Master is present , then " the Senior Warden , or , in his absence , the Junior Warden , shall rule
the Lodge . " Here , then , we have a clear and precise definition of the rights of the Immediate and other Past Masters . It isonly in the absence of the Master and Wardens that any one of the P . M . ' s can summon the Lodge . It is only in the actual absence of the W . M . that it devolves ou the
I . P . M ., or the S . P . M . present , to occupy the chair of the Lodge . In the absence of Installed Masters , then the Lodge is ruled by the Senior , or , in his absence , by the Junior Warden , but without occupying the chair . When , then , we hear of the I . P . M ., or S . P . M . present , claiming the
right to occupy the chair momentarily vacated by the Master , we know that he is advancing a claim to which he is nofc justly entitled , for the Master may invite any qualified brother to occupy his place . It is onl y in the event of no such invitation being addressed to a particular
P . M ., that the chair is taken as of right by the Immediate or Senior Past Master . It is clear , therefore , that no Past Master has any reason to feel aggrieved if his junior , or a visiting P . M ., is preferred over his head to fill the chair . We confess that , for the sake of courtesy , we should like
to see a W . M . show respect for the feelings and seniority of the Past Masters of his Lodge . It is to them he must always look for advice in any difficulty . They are the sage counsellors , on whose wisdom and experience he must rely
chiefly for support . It is impossible , therefore , that he can be too conciliatory in his bearing towards them . On the other hand , the Past Masters must exercise some forbearance towards their brother in the chair . It is not
calculated to promote either harmony or discipline in the Lodge , when the authority of the Master is disputed , or when offence is taken where none was intended probably . It cannot tend to the good of Freemasonry in general , or of any Lodge in particular , that unseemly differences
should arise among our " Conscript Fathers , " whom we are accustomed , or expected , to- regard with feelings of respect . And now that it has been stated authoritatively what are the powers and privileges of a Master in this particular respect , we trust that , in the interests of the
whole Masonic body , we shall hear no more of this class of bickerings ; and that , as the Grand Registrar remarked so particularly , we shall find our laws interpreted broadl y and liberally , not in a narrow and cantankerous spirit .
Liberality of view is essential to the well-being of the Craft , and ifc is in order to secure this as far as possible that we have again reverted to the proceedings at the last meeting of Grand Lodge . While on this subject , it will interest our readers perhaps to learn that , in America , in the absence of the Master , the practice adopted differs conspicuously from
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
The Rights Of Worshipful Masters.
THE RIGHTS OF WORSHIPFUL MASTERS .
WE do nob think too great importance can be attached to the question , What are the powers and privileges of a Master ? We revert , therefore , to the subject , in order that our readers may have before them , as far as we are able to state it , an exposition of the law as pointed out by tho Grand Registrar at the last Communication of
Grand Lodge—so far , at least , as regards the assistance tho Master may call upon a member of his Lodge to render him in the fulfilment of his duties , and whom he may invite to render such assistance . A certain amount of obscurity would seem to have attended this knotty point , not
because the law was nofc sufficiently precise , but because it had not been studied with sufficient care . There has been some amount of confusion between the requirements of the law and the satisfaction of courtesy . The more clearly it is understood what may be done by the Master , the less
likely is it that any heartburnings will be excited . No brother will have a right to feel offended when the Master of his Lodge does that which he is legally allowed to do , nor do we think the latter will be less studious of the feelings of his Past Masters because his powers and privileges are
more clearly defined . At all events , there is less prospect of discord arising in a Lodge , when its members are wellinformed upon this subject , and this being so , we need hardly apologise to our readers for troubling them with this second disquisition on the authority of Masters .
The case which led to the statement of the law by the Grand Registrar will bear repetition . The W . M . of one of our Provincial Lodges expressed a wish that a certain member of his Lodge should assist him in working one of our ceremonies . The I . P . M . objected , and claimed the
right to do so ; and he did so , the W . M . vacating the chair for that purpose , but under protest . The I . P . M . was wrong in advancing any such claim , and the Grand Registrar has ruled that the Master of a Lodge may invite any brotherthat is , any qualified brother—to speak the words for him
in working any of the ceremonies , the words being , in fact , his own words , though spoken by another ; and , moreover , that he may place the brother assisting him either near his pedestal , or in any other part of the Lodge . This , of course , applies to the case of a
Master who is momentarily " incapable of discharging the duties of his office , " but has no intention of vacating the chair . But in the event of his withdrawing , nofc from the Lodge itself , but from the presidency of the Lodge for it matters not how brief a period of time , he clearly
abdicates his functions . In such case , though he has the right to invite any brother present to take his place , it can obviously be only one who is qtialified , and the only brethren qualified to fill the chair of a Lodge , are Installed Masters . We think it important that this should be clearly
understood by our readers ; for , unfortunately , in his very elaborate judgment , the Grand Registrar made use of the words any brother , without adding the important word " qualified . " We have throughout conceded that this was what he intended by the use of the word any , and no
doubt it was so understood generally by his audience ; but it is well in all snch matters to be as precise as possible , especially as there have arisen at different times sundry
misunderstandings on this very point . This , then , appears to be the law according to the latest exposition . A Master who retains his seat may invite any brother to perform any of . the ceremonies for him , and he may place him in any
The Rights Of Worshipful Masters.
part of the Lodge , the ceremony thus performed having the same validity as though he had himself rehearsed it . If he vacate the chair during the performance , he may invite any brother he chooses to occupy his seat , who is qualified to fill it , that is , any brother having the rank of an Installed
Master . Thus far , then , the I . P . M . and other P . M . ' s of a Lodge iu the order of their seniority , have no rights afc all , except that it is only one of their degree who can legally occupy the chair of a Lodge in tho absence , actual or virtual , of the W . M .
We must now consider the rights and privileges of Past Masters . In the absence of the Master , it devolves , in the first instance , on the Senior Warden to " act as Master in summoning the Lodge ; " in the Senior Warden ' s absence , on the Junior Warden ; and then , in his absence , " the
Immediate Past Master , or , in his absence , the Senior Past Master of the Lodge present shall take the chair . " But if no Past Master is present , then " the Senior Warden , or , in his absence , the Junior Warden , shall rule
the Lodge . " Here , then , we have a clear and precise definition of the rights of the Immediate and other Past Masters . It isonly in the absence of the Master and Wardens that any one of the P . M . ' s can summon the Lodge . It is only in the actual absence of the W . M . that it devolves ou the
I . P . M ., or the S . P . M . present , to occupy the chair of the Lodge . In the absence of Installed Masters , then the Lodge is ruled by the Senior , or , in his absence , by the Junior Warden , but without occupying the chair . When , then , we hear of the I . P . M ., or S . P . M . present , claiming the
right to occupy the chair momentarily vacated by the Master , we know that he is advancing a claim to which he is nofc justly entitled , for the Master may invite any qualified brother to occupy his place . It is onl y in the event of no such invitation being addressed to a particular
P . M ., that the chair is taken as of right by the Immediate or Senior Past Master . It is clear , therefore , that no Past Master has any reason to feel aggrieved if his junior , or a visiting P . M ., is preferred over his head to fill the chair . We confess that , for the sake of courtesy , we should like
to see a W . M . show respect for the feelings and seniority of the Past Masters of his Lodge . It is to them he must always look for advice in any difficulty . They are the sage counsellors , on whose wisdom and experience he must rely
chiefly for support . It is impossible , therefore , that he can be too conciliatory in his bearing towards them . On the other hand , the Past Masters must exercise some forbearance towards their brother in the chair . It is not
calculated to promote either harmony or discipline in the Lodge , when the authority of the Master is disputed , or when offence is taken where none was intended probably . It cannot tend to the good of Freemasonry in general , or of any Lodge in particular , that unseemly differences
should arise among our " Conscript Fathers , " whom we are accustomed , or expected , to- regard with feelings of respect . And now that it has been stated authoritatively what are the powers and privileges of a Master in this particular respect , we trust that , in the interests of the
whole Masonic body , we shall hear no more of this class of bickerings ; and that , as the Grand Registrar remarked so particularly , we shall find our laws interpreted broadl y and liberally , not in a narrow and cantankerous spirit .
Liberality of view is essential to the well-being of the Craft , and ifc is in order to secure this as far as possible that we have again reverted to the proceedings at the last meeting of Grand Lodge . While on this subject , it will interest our readers perhaps to learn that , in America , in the absence of the Master , the practice adopted differs conspicuously from