-
Articles/Ads
Article THE FREEMASONS' QUARTERLY REVIEW. ← Page 6 of 8 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
The Freemasons' Quarterly Review.
resignation was rejected in behalf of the Deputy , that the Provincial Grand Master might thereafter enjoy the gratification of inflicting the discredit of a dismissal ? This is , of course , to assume that Mr . D'Eyncourt is capable of such a mastei * -stroke of policy—that his powers of intellect
and ill-nature are co-equal . The alternative is to suppose him to be as weak-minded as he is ill-tempered—to be the mere creature of power ; exercising it according to the whim of the moment , upon those who receive office and authority from him , and bending with corresponding submission and
alacrity to the will of the master-power placed above him . The latter , most probably , is the fact . The " secondly" of Dr . Oliver shows that Mr . D'Eyncourt does not come into court with clean hands . Indeed , that was previously proved by his first concurring with , and then
condemning , the act of his Deputy . However , under this view of the question , he ascends the Masonic throne , and sits in judgment upon a Brother , whose actual offence it
will yet puzzle the cunningest sophist to define , himself being a self-condemned culprit . Is it not a grave Masonic offence to omit the holding of a Provincial Grand Lodge in uniformity with the by-laws of that district—in violation of the Provincial Grand Master's own
recommendationand in the face of a formal resolution of the Lodge as a body ? Is this no breach of Masonic discipline ? We may be told that the Book of Constitutions provides no remedy in such a case—our own assertions may be retorted upon us , that the principles of Masonic law , in that most
imperfect of all codes , differ very essentially in their application to Grand Officers , and to the Craft at large—it may be repeated to us , that the Grand Master can do no wrong , and that , therefore , Provincial Grand Masters , as his Deputies , must partake largely of " the right divine to govern wrong "
—in short , we may be , and doubtless shall be sneered at for reprinting the unsophisticated notion of Dr . Oliver , of leaving this breach of discipline to be dealt with by " those who may consider themselves more particularly interested in the matter . " As a Masonic offence the Grand Master
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
The Freemasons' Quarterly Review.
resignation was rejected in behalf of the Deputy , that the Provincial Grand Master might thereafter enjoy the gratification of inflicting the discredit of a dismissal ? This is , of course , to assume that Mr . D'Eyncourt is capable of such a mastei * -stroke of policy—that his powers of intellect
and ill-nature are co-equal . The alternative is to suppose him to be as weak-minded as he is ill-tempered—to be the mere creature of power ; exercising it according to the whim of the moment , upon those who receive office and authority from him , and bending with corresponding submission and
alacrity to the will of the master-power placed above him . The latter , most probably , is the fact . The " secondly" of Dr . Oliver shows that Mr . D'Eyncourt does not come into court with clean hands . Indeed , that was previously proved by his first concurring with , and then
condemning , the act of his Deputy . However , under this view of the question , he ascends the Masonic throne , and sits in judgment upon a Brother , whose actual offence it
will yet puzzle the cunningest sophist to define , himself being a self-condemned culprit . Is it not a grave Masonic offence to omit the holding of a Provincial Grand Lodge in uniformity with the by-laws of that district—in violation of the Provincial Grand Master's own
recommendationand in the face of a formal resolution of the Lodge as a body ? Is this no breach of Masonic discipline ? We may be told that the Book of Constitutions provides no remedy in such a case—our own assertions may be retorted upon us , that the principles of Masonic law , in that most
imperfect of all codes , differ very essentially in their application to Grand Officers , and to the Craft at large—it may be repeated to us , that the Grand Master can do no wrong , and that , therefore , Provincial Grand Masters , as his Deputies , must partake largely of " the right divine to govern wrong "
—in short , we may be , and doubtless shall be sneered at for reprinting the unsophisticated notion of Dr . Oliver , of leaving this breach of discipline to be dealt with by " those who may consider themselves more particularly interested in the matter . " As a Masonic offence the Grand Master