-
Articles/Ads
Article TO HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS THE DUKE OF SUSSEX. ← Page 3 of 4 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
To His Royal Highness The Duke Of Sussex.
not understand , was still determined to oppose them , and they theiefore respectfully , but firmly , refused to abandon the Charity . Now , in every stage of this proceeding your Royal Highness was wrong . You were wrong , in the first instance , in not openly objecting to the Charity , and at the same time in secretly opposing it . 2 dly . You were wrong in approving the whole principle , but objecting to the introduction of the Charity on untenable grounds . 3 dl . You were
y wrong in opposing it after it had received the sanction of Grand Lodge . 4 thly . You were wrong in afterwards declaring your decided opposition to the whole principle of the Charity , which you had formerly approved . Sthly . You were wrong in offering to patronise the Charity , if the supporters would meet your views ; and when they did so , you were wrong in declaring that unless they abandoned a principal part of their plan ,
yon would hold no communication with them . Gthly . You were wrong in threatening to introduce a new Charity , by adopting part of the principles of the Asylum , which you had previously declared met with your decided opposition . And , lastly , you were wrong throughout the whole proceeding , in the want of courtesy , amounting at times to insult , with which you treated a very large and influential body of the Craft . If in this proceeding your Royal Highness has not acted courteously or wiseland has therebwounded the feelings and the pride of a
y , y very numerous body of Masons , your friends and supporters , who in this instance must be identified with yourself , have acted still more unwisely in the course they have adopted , and which , together with your own conduct , has created the confusion and party feeling now existing in Masonry .
It was not to be supposed that the course of opposition pursued by your Royal Highness , and your want of courtesy to the Asylum supporters , would be passed over in silence , particularly when they were backed by the insults of one of your Royal Highness ' s supporters ; and therefore , at a meeting of the subscribers to the Asylum , when your Royal Highness ' s letter was read , it might naturally be expected that observations not palatable to Royal Hihness miht be used
very your g g , and not the less palatable because they were true . At this meeting observations upon your Royal Highness ' s conduct were made , certainly in milder terms than it deserved , which formed the ground of a complaint against three Brethren , who were summoned to the Board of General Purposes , for having thus dared to canvass the actions of their Grancl Master when he might be in the wrong .
It is well known that your Royal Highness appoints eleven out of the twenty-five members of this Board , the remainder heing elected by the Craft , ancl therefore it is not surprising that at times it should contain a majority in your favour . Aware of this majority , the Board have published the result of their wisdom by declaring , 1 st . That words ( true or not ) used at a public meeting not Masonic , if spoken of a person who happens to be a Mason , are punishable by their tribunal;—2 nd . That
objecting to the misconduct of a Mason is punishable , if such Mason has been guilty of misconduct , because in that case it is an insult;—3 d . That although three or four witnesses only prove the facts , and the same facts are disproved by fourteen or fifteen , the smaller number must of course be preferred . And , therefore , acting upon these premises , they suspended the three Brethren from their Masonic functions for different periods , vi ? . two of them for six , and the other for three months .
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
To His Royal Highness The Duke Of Sussex.
not understand , was still determined to oppose them , and they theiefore respectfully , but firmly , refused to abandon the Charity . Now , in every stage of this proceeding your Royal Highness was wrong . You were wrong , in the first instance , in not openly objecting to the Charity , and at the same time in secretly opposing it . 2 dly . You were wrong in approving the whole principle , but objecting to the introduction of the Charity on untenable grounds . 3 dl . You were
y wrong in opposing it after it had received the sanction of Grand Lodge . 4 thly . You were wrong in afterwards declaring your decided opposition to the whole principle of the Charity , which you had formerly approved . Sthly . You were wrong in offering to patronise the Charity , if the supporters would meet your views ; and when they did so , you were wrong in declaring that unless they abandoned a principal part of their plan ,
yon would hold no communication with them . Gthly . You were wrong in threatening to introduce a new Charity , by adopting part of the principles of the Asylum , which you had previously declared met with your decided opposition . And , lastly , you were wrong throughout the whole proceeding , in the want of courtesy , amounting at times to insult , with which you treated a very large and influential body of the Craft . If in this proceeding your Royal Highness has not acted courteously or wiseland has therebwounded the feelings and the pride of a
y , y very numerous body of Masons , your friends and supporters , who in this instance must be identified with yourself , have acted still more unwisely in the course they have adopted , and which , together with your own conduct , has created the confusion and party feeling now existing in Masonry .
It was not to be supposed that the course of opposition pursued by your Royal Highness , and your want of courtesy to the Asylum supporters , would be passed over in silence , particularly when they were backed by the insults of one of your Royal Highness ' s supporters ; and therefore , at a meeting of the subscribers to the Asylum , when your Royal Highness ' s letter was read , it might naturally be expected that observations not palatable to Royal Hihness miht be used
very your g g , and not the less palatable because they were true . At this meeting observations upon your Royal Highness ' s conduct were made , certainly in milder terms than it deserved , which formed the ground of a complaint against three Brethren , who were summoned to the Board of General Purposes , for having thus dared to canvass the actions of their Grancl Master when he might be in the wrong .
It is well known that your Royal Highness appoints eleven out of the twenty-five members of this Board , the remainder heing elected by the Craft , ancl therefore it is not surprising that at times it should contain a majority in your favour . Aware of this majority , the Board have published the result of their wisdom by declaring , 1 st . That words ( true or not ) used at a public meeting not Masonic , if spoken of a person who happens to be a Mason , are punishable by their tribunal;—2 nd . That
objecting to the misconduct of a Mason is punishable , if such Mason has been guilty of misconduct , because in that case it is an insult;—3 d . That although three or four witnesses only prove the facts , and the same facts are disproved by fourteen or fifteen , the smaller number must of course be preferred . And , therefore , acting upon these premises , they suspended the three Brethren from their Masonic functions for different periods , vi ? . two of them for six , and the other for three months .