-
Articles/Ads
Article PERSECUTION ← Page 12 of 21 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Persecution
It should be borne in mind that ALL these witnesses deposed to M'Mul len s having said " that his Royal Plighness was King ofthe Craft , and that we were bound to obey him . " And all agreed , " that if the designation oj the Asylum , and the names of the parties described in the paper , ivere left out , they should not have known the Circular to be a report ofthe meeting . Alderman WOOD was desired to enter on his defence at the next meeting .
Por reasons previously stated , we shall not charge tins account with too stringent a censure upon tlie attempt made to press for a conviction by one member of the Board , nor with the collusion with the persecutors by another , unless future circumstances should render it necessary . The unanimity of the witnesses for thc defence , ivho were never previously examined , was so apparent—for nothing is more consistent than truththat their expressions were termed " Class Words : " and one of the persecutors was so galled by the fact of their perfect unity , that he was instigated
to declare that the evidence had been got up—an inuejuio for which he was not reproved by the Board . February 12 . — Alderman Wood not being in attendance , the case was adjourned until the ISth . Dr . Crucefix was not summoned for the 12 th , hut was in attendance . It is proper to remark , that occasionally Dr . Crucefix was prompted to put a question , feeling that his own case was involved , but was as often checked by a direction , not always very courteously given , that it was not his case , and that he must be silent ; and that when his case came on , he could then , and then only , cross-examine .
February IS . —The PRESIDENT communicated a resolution , that the Board would examine such of its members as were present at the 13 ' / i November . Alderman WOOD objected to this . The case for the persecution having been declared closed , he had attended to enter upon his defence , and put in a protest against such a violent course . The PRESIDENT stated that the questions should be confined to the following : —
Were you present ? Who spoke ? What was the nature of the speeches ? Brother ACKLAM—Was present . Alderman Wood spoke , but not in the language of that paper ; perhaps what he said in the heat of argument he might not have said on cool reflection . Brother BOSSY ( previously pledged to give no opinion ) Was present . Alderman Wood did speak disrespectfully ; he called him to order , and so did M ' -Mullen (!) . ( Alderman Wood strongly objected to the mode of examination . ) Did not say , at the Grand Officers' mess , that the paper was true /
Brother LEE—Was present . Thought Alderman Wood spoke disrespectfully , but could not remember any particular words . Brother M'MULLEN ( also previously pledged to give no opinion )—Was present . Tbe Alderman spoke highly disrespectfully , not perhaps in the words stated . In the course of his speech he said , "J pay for my ¦ subscriptions and jewels , " THEREBY MEANING THAT HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS DID NOT ! Brother RULE . —Was present . Disrespectful language usedbut
was , would not bind himself to precise words . Brother PI . UDALL—Considered it so improper for a member ofthe Board sitting as a . fudge to be examined as a witness , that he declined to ' answer any question . Brother WARRINER—Placed every confidence in the witnesses for thc defence , but would not follow the example of Brother UDALL . He stated that the Alderman said , " I have paid for my jewels and subscriptions ; " but
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Persecution
It should be borne in mind that ALL these witnesses deposed to M'Mul len s having said " that his Royal Plighness was King ofthe Craft , and that we were bound to obey him . " And all agreed , " that if the designation oj the Asylum , and the names of the parties described in the paper , ivere left out , they should not have known the Circular to be a report ofthe meeting . Alderman WOOD was desired to enter on his defence at the next meeting .
Por reasons previously stated , we shall not charge tins account with too stringent a censure upon tlie attempt made to press for a conviction by one member of the Board , nor with the collusion with the persecutors by another , unless future circumstances should render it necessary . The unanimity of the witnesses for thc defence , ivho were never previously examined , was so apparent—for nothing is more consistent than truththat their expressions were termed " Class Words : " and one of the persecutors was so galled by the fact of their perfect unity , that he was instigated
to declare that the evidence had been got up—an inuejuio for which he was not reproved by the Board . February 12 . — Alderman Wood not being in attendance , the case was adjourned until the ISth . Dr . Crucefix was not summoned for the 12 th , hut was in attendance . It is proper to remark , that occasionally Dr . Crucefix was prompted to put a question , feeling that his own case was involved , but was as often checked by a direction , not always very courteously given , that it was not his case , and that he must be silent ; and that when his case came on , he could then , and then only , cross-examine .
February IS . —The PRESIDENT communicated a resolution , that the Board would examine such of its members as were present at the 13 ' / i November . Alderman WOOD objected to this . The case for the persecution having been declared closed , he had attended to enter upon his defence , and put in a protest against such a violent course . The PRESIDENT stated that the questions should be confined to the following : —
Were you present ? Who spoke ? What was the nature of the speeches ? Brother ACKLAM—Was present . Alderman Wood spoke , but not in the language of that paper ; perhaps what he said in the heat of argument he might not have said on cool reflection . Brother BOSSY ( previously pledged to give no opinion ) Was present . Alderman Wood did speak disrespectfully ; he called him to order , and so did M ' -Mullen (!) . ( Alderman Wood strongly objected to the mode of examination . ) Did not say , at the Grand Officers' mess , that the paper was true /
Brother LEE—Was present . Thought Alderman Wood spoke disrespectfully , but could not remember any particular words . Brother M'MULLEN ( also previously pledged to give no opinion )—Was present . Tbe Alderman spoke highly disrespectfully , not perhaps in the words stated . In the course of his speech he said , "J pay for my ¦ subscriptions and jewels , " THEREBY MEANING THAT HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS DID NOT ! Brother RULE . —Was present . Disrespectful language usedbut
was , would not bind himself to precise words . Brother PI . UDALL—Considered it so improper for a member ofthe Board sitting as a . fudge to be examined as a witness , that he declined to ' answer any question . Brother WARRINER—Placed every confidence in the witnesses for thc defence , but would not follow the example of Brother UDALL . He stated that the Alderman said , " I have paid for my jewels and subscriptions ; " but