-
Articles/Ads
Article BROTHER J. LEE STEVENS. ← Page 13 of 23 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Brother J. Lee Stevens.
Brother AV RIGHT . —I really do not know . I cannot remember any particular phrase which should have drawn from Brother Stevens the observation . Brother Bell ' s amendment was more lengthy , more formal . Brother Stevens might consider that it was unnecessary , and that his own resolution was sufficiently explanatory . I understood ' soft sawder , ' as then applied , to be unnecessary verbiage .
Not to weary our readers with continuous extracts from the evidence , we may briefly add that , with the exception of the three witnesses for the Complainants , Barnard , " Truman , and Jackson , who either invalidated each other ' s or their own testimony on every point , and who would have been scouted in any other court of inquiry had they so conducted themselves , all others concurred in testifying in the most positive manner to the scandalous incorrectness of the printed statement , upon which the whole proceedings were grounded . And whilst some of them proved — as had
previously heen admitted by Barnard and another of the witnesses for the complaint , in contradiction of themselves — that important passages were entirely omitted , every one agreed in stating that Brother Farnfield ' s resignation occurred immediately after the minutes of the preceding meeting had been confirmed ; and not at the termination of the meeting , as could only have occurred if the printed statement had been " substantially correct ;" or if , as regards this part of the case , the deliberate assertions of Barnard , Trumanand Jacksonwere not falsehoods of the deepest dye .
, , One remarkable coincidence of recollection and concurrence of opinion we must notice . Every witness , without a single exception , gave evidence that during the whole ofthe proceedings ofthe I 3 th November 1839 , Brother Stevens was not once called to order . How was it that the combative , violent , anil pervertive Jackson did not call him to order , if he was so often speaking disrespectfully of the Duke ? AVhat kept that restless busy-body Barnard
quiet ? Who restrained the tatler Truman ? AVliy was the mischief-maker M'Mullen silent ? How came Peter Thomson to forget that he was " a Man and a Mason ? " AVas the acute J . B . King asleep ? And were Bossy and Bond bemuddled ? AVe ask no such question respecting poor Laurence Thompson—he was away at that period ; and only arrived home in time to assume the functions of a public prosecutor , and make his coup d ' essai upon belief . Plappy Laurence Thompson ! there is a heavy harvest of other people ' s quarrels into which thy puny sickle may be thrust ; whilst thou
mayst console thyself with the reflection that thou art too contemptible for retaliation ! To economise our space , and to place the proceedings in as clear a manner as possible before our readers , we have not followed the course adopted b y the Board , who heard the case of Brother Crucefix befoie that of Brother Stevens was decided ; nor have we given the dates against each portion of evidence in the latter , as it occurred , but have arranged it , as Brother Stevens did in his defenceunder separate heads . The hearing of evidence
, in his case occupied three days ; and on the last he was disappointed in the arrival of witnesses for his defence , some having been wearied out with so many previous attendances , and others deeming it impossible that there could be any risk of a hostile decision on the part of the Board . A letter from Brother Cullington , a much respected gentleman , and an able Past Master , will give a fair transcript of the opinion that prevailed among all who were not behind the scenes .
" To J . L . Stevens , Esq . DEAR SIR , —I should regret that I shall not be able to be with you in Queen Street this evening , did I believe my absence could be of the slightest importance to you ; but I feel that my testimony could add nothing to that of the many witnesses who have been , and I hear yet are to be , examined . I could merely say ( and , as a lawyer , it appears to me no evidence at all )
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Brother J. Lee Stevens.
Brother AV RIGHT . —I really do not know . I cannot remember any particular phrase which should have drawn from Brother Stevens the observation . Brother Bell ' s amendment was more lengthy , more formal . Brother Stevens might consider that it was unnecessary , and that his own resolution was sufficiently explanatory . I understood ' soft sawder , ' as then applied , to be unnecessary verbiage .
Not to weary our readers with continuous extracts from the evidence , we may briefly add that , with the exception of the three witnesses for the Complainants , Barnard , " Truman , and Jackson , who either invalidated each other ' s or their own testimony on every point , and who would have been scouted in any other court of inquiry had they so conducted themselves , all others concurred in testifying in the most positive manner to the scandalous incorrectness of the printed statement , upon which the whole proceedings were grounded . And whilst some of them proved — as had
previously heen admitted by Barnard and another of the witnesses for the complaint , in contradiction of themselves — that important passages were entirely omitted , every one agreed in stating that Brother Farnfield ' s resignation occurred immediately after the minutes of the preceding meeting had been confirmed ; and not at the termination of the meeting , as could only have occurred if the printed statement had been " substantially correct ;" or if , as regards this part of the case , the deliberate assertions of Barnard , Trumanand Jacksonwere not falsehoods of the deepest dye .
, , One remarkable coincidence of recollection and concurrence of opinion we must notice . Every witness , without a single exception , gave evidence that during the whole ofthe proceedings ofthe I 3 th November 1839 , Brother Stevens was not once called to order . How was it that the combative , violent , anil pervertive Jackson did not call him to order , if he was so often speaking disrespectfully of the Duke ? AVhat kept that restless busy-body Barnard
quiet ? Who restrained the tatler Truman ? AVliy was the mischief-maker M'Mullen silent ? How came Peter Thomson to forget that he was " a Man and a Mason ? " AVas the acute J . B . King asleep ? And were Bossy and Bond bemuddled ? AVe ask no such question respecting poor Laurence Thompson—he was away at that period ; and only arrived home in time to assume the functions of a public prosecutor , and make his coup d ' essai upon belief . Plappy Laurence Thompson ! there is a heavy harvest of other people ' s quarrels into which thy puny sickle may be thrust ; whilst thou
mayst console thyself with the reflection that thou art too contemptible for retaliation ! To economise our space , and to place the proceedings in as clear a manner as possible before our readers , we have not followed the course adopted b y the Board , who heard the case of Brother Crucefix befoie that of Brother Stevens was decided ; nor have we given the dates against each portion of evidence in the latter , as it occurred , but have arranged it , as Brother Stevens did in his defenceunder separate heads . The hearing of evidence
, in his case occupied three days ; and on the last he was disappointed in the arrival of witnesses for his defence , some having been wearied out with so many previous attendances , and others deeming it impossible that there could be any risk of a hostile decision on the part of the Board . A letter from Brother Cullington , a much respected gentleman , and an able Past Master , will give a fair transcript of the opinion that prevailed among all who were not behind the scenes .
" To J . L . Stevens , Esq . DEAR SIR , —I should regret that I shall not be able to be with you in Queen Street this evening , did I believe my absence could be of the slightest importance to you ; but I feel that my testimony could add nothing to that of the many witnesses who have been , and I hear yet are to be , examined . I could merely say ( and , as a lawyer , it appears to me no evidence at all )