-
Articles/Ads
Article PERSECUTION ← Page 13 of 21 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Persecution
that he applied the context to the author ofthe Circular , and not to His Royal Highness . That M'Mullen said His Royal Highness was King ofthe Craft . Brother Alderman WOOD then called Brother LAURENCE THOMPSON . —Did not print that paper . Would not state who did . Brother Dr . CRUCEFIX . —Was chairman of the meeting . That paper ivas so untrue , that he was ashamed of it ; and so unfair , that he was disgusted with it . Neither M'Mullen nor Bossy addressed him as chairman to call
Alderman Wood to order . No rude resolution was ever passed . Brother Farnfield's resignation was tendered ou the confirmation of the minutes . He had previously given that Brother the best advice he could . Brother KING . —Disrespectful language was used , but he did not address the Chair to order ! The Alderman then stated , that as new matter had been admitted , he ' should call fresh evidence , and complained strongly of the injustice and partiality of the Hoard—that he was prepared to enter on his defence before the
new regulation of the Board to examine itself—that the Board having admitted him to examine some further evidence , he was entitled to call moreand that these circumstances altered bis mode of defence . The Alderman ' s case was then postponed until the 25 th , at three o ' clock .
DEFENCE OF ALDERMAN WOOD . February 23 . —The Alderman was summoned without Dr . Crucefix , but it was afterwards agreed that the Doctor should be present . It appeared that Brother Warriner had altered his evidence on an important point . Pie now believed that the allusion to jewels and subscriptions pointed at the Grand Master , and net to the author of the Circular !!! The Alderman entered on his defence , which took up considerable time , and was very conclusive in its argument . We would give it at length , but the proceedings , however abridged , will still be inconvenientl y long . The chief points were as
follow—The Masonic public would demand some history of the appalling course that had been adopted , and would have to be in some way or other supplied . He spoke in favour of the Asylum , at meetings of which he had presided , with some credit and great satisfaction , aud believed himself to be persecuted on that account . The pretended messengers from the Grand Master had used disrespectful arguments , it afterwards appearing that they were altogether unauthorized . He alluded to the evil tendency of the scandalous printed libel—the permission of the author to be a witness against him in
support of his own infamy—and the refusal to put proper questions to witnesses . He condemned the infamous allusions to the Earl of Durham ; and tbe folly of assuming that Plis Royal Highness ' s name was not to be mentioned but with a Masonic curb on the tongue . He contended that the conduct of the Chairman was correct ; that the charges should have been made against the libeller ; and that whilst the course of proceeding vvas altogether unmasonic , not a single charge had been made out . That the evidence proved that othersand not himselfhad used the name ofthe Grand Master
, , with disrespect ; and that he hoped His Royal Highness would punish the dastards who had been the occasion of thus occupying the time of the Board and of the defendants . Laurence Thompson replied to the address of Alderman Wood , but as we have scarcely given an outline of the one , we shall merely observe , that for violence and vulgarity , the reply has rarely been exceeded . We have verbatim copies of the address and reply .
February 29 . —THE CASE OF D R . CRUCEFIX . Before giving the daily proceedings at thc Board , wc insert copies of a letter to the Grand Master , and the correspondence between Dr . Crucefix and the Grand Secretary ; partly referred to before .
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Persecution
that he applied the context to the author ofthe Circular , and not to His Royal Highness . That M'Mullen said His Royal Highness was King ofthe Craft . Brother Alderman WOOD then called Brother LAURENCE THOMPSON . —Did not print that paper . Would not state who did . Brother Dr . CRUCEFIX . —Was chairman of the meeting . That paper ivas so untrue , that he was ashamed of it ; and so unfair , that he was disgusted with it . Neither M'Mullen nor Bossy addressed him as chairman to call
Alderman Wood to order . No rude resolution was ever passed . Brother Farnfield's resignation was tendered ou the confirmation of the minutes . He had previously given that Brother the best advice he could . Brother KING . —Disrespectful language was used , but he did not address the Chair to order ! The Alderman then stated , that as new matter had been admitted , he ' should call fresh evidence , and complained strongly of the injustice and partiality of the Hoard—that he was prepared to enter on his defence before the
new regulation of the Board to examine itself—that the Board having admitted him to examine some further evidence , he was entitled to call moreand that these circumstances altered bis mode of defence . The Alderman ' s case was then postponed until the 25 th , at three o ' clock .
DEFENCE OF ALDERMAN WOOD . February 23 . —The Alderman was summoned without Dr . Crucefix , but it was afterwards agreed that the Doctor should be present . It appeared that Brother Warriner had altered his evidence on an important point . Pie now believed that the allusion to jewels and subscriptions pointed at the Grand Master , and net to the author of the Circular !!! The Alderman entered on his defence , which took up considerable time , and was very conclusive in its argument . We would give it at length , but the proceedings , however abridged , will still be inconvenientl y long . The chief points were as
follow—The Masonic public would demand some history of the appalling course that had been adopted , and would have to be in some way or other supplied . He spoke in favour of the Asylum , at meetings of which he had presided , with some credit and great satisfaction , aud believed himself to be persecuted on that account . The pretended messengers from the Grand Master had used disrespectful arguments , it afterwards appearing that they were altogether unauthorized . He alluded to the evil tendency of the scandalous printed libel—the permission of the author to be a witness against him in
support of his own infamy—and the refusal to put proper questions to witnesses . He condemned the infamous allusions to the Earl of Durham ; and tbe folly of assuming that Plis Royal Highness ' s name was not to be mentioned but with a Masonic curb on the tongue . He contended that the conduct of the Chairman was correct ; that the charges should have been made against the libeller ; and that whilst the course of proceeding vvas altogether unmasonic , not a single charge had been made out . That the evidence proved that othersand not himselfhad used the name ofthe Grand Master
, , with disrespect ; and that he hoped His Royal Highness would punish the dastards who had been the occasion of thus occupying the time of the Board and of the defendants . Laurence Thompson replied to the address of Alderman Wood , but as we have scarcely given an outline of the one , we shall merely observe , that for violence and vulgarity , the reply has rarely been exceeded . We have verbatim copies of the address and reply .
February 29 . —THE CASE OF D R . CRUCEFIX . Before giving the daily proceedings at thc Board , wc insert copies of a letter to the Grand Master , and the correspondence between Dr . Crucefix and the Grand Secretary ; partly referred to before .