-
Articles/Ads
Article QUARTERLY COMMUNICATION. ← Page 7 of 12 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Quarterly Communication.
Bro . JAMES SAVAGE opposed the petition , not on its merits but on the way it was brought forward . He had been subjected to the same treatment ; he had on one occasion proposed that relief should be given , and was refused because he knew but little of the distress—( cries of question and divide ); it was quite to the question and to the purpose if the case could not he entered into , nor the truth of the petition vouched for by witnesses or Brethren who could speak of their own knowledge of the
case —( repeated cries of question ) . Bro . SHAW was perfectly satisfied with the case as it stood ; not any one had got up to oppose the donation to the widow upon any grounds but those of form ; why should not some one say the petitioner was unworthy before it was refused , or that it should be necessary to say it was worthy before it was granted . He for one was assured , and was content with that assurance , that the whole merits of the petition had
been investigated at the Board of Benevolence , and that Board , after such full and impartial investigation , had recommended the Grand Lodge to give thirty pounds to the petitioner . Was not that proof enough of the merit of the claims , ofthe opinion entertained by the investigators legally ancl properly constituted . They could have relieved the petitioner , but they did more ; they had gone into the enquiry , had obtained all the information , and acting upon that hacl suggested to the Grand Lodge
to relieve this case , i he recommendation of the Board was in itself sufficient to enable them , in the absence of reasons for refusal , to come to a decision in accordance with the Board , but if they wanted to go into the details they could have the petition read —( no , no , and cheers ) The GRAND MASTER could not allow the petition to be read ; it was addressed to the Board of Benevolence , ancl not to the Grand Lodge ; he thought the recommendation of the Board was in itself an investigation .
The amendment was put ancl negatived . Bro . M'MULLEN would now move that the petition be read ( laughter , and oh , oh)—it was a dangerous and bad precedent to proceed in this way . AVhat guarantee had they for the proper application of their funds . JBro . AVHITMORE warmly supported the motion . Several other Brothers spoke for and against the motion , which was put and carried with one dissentient .
After Bro . John Savage had replied , he pointed out that the law did not require the attendance of any Master of a Lodge to speak for country petitions . Bro . JOHN SAVAGE had now to propose that the sum of fifty pounds be granted to the widow of a Brother ofthe Alfred Lodge , Oxford . He was not in the same position in this case as he was in the last , for he hacl made himself fully acquainted with the subject of the motion ; and never had a lady , for such he could call her , come before Grand Lodge
to solicit its aid with greater claims than the one he represented . By education , by station , and by birth she was entitled to such appellation , and until the unfortunate failure of her husband , through the neglect and dishonesty of others , she had not anticipated the sad reverse that had taken place . She was afflicted in addition to poverty with blindness , having lost the sight of one eye , and partly that of the other , while tending a sick child . Bro . Savage made an impressive address , and pathetically asked the Brethren for their support . Bro . Dr . LANE , as a Member of the Lodge at Oxford , had known the deceased Brother , and could confirm all that had been asserted .
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Quarterly Communication.
Bro . JAMES SAVAGE opposed the petition , not on its merits but on the way it was brought forward . He had been subjected to the same treatment ; he had on one occasion proposed that relief should be given , and was refused because he knew but little of the distress—( cries of question and divide ); it was quite to the question and to the purpose if the case could not he entered into , nor the truth of the petition vouched for by witnesses or Brethren who could speak of their own knowledge of the
case —( repeated cries of question ) . Bro . SHAW was perfectly satisfied with the case as it stood ; not any one had got up to oppose the donation to the widow upon any grounds but those of form ; why should not some one say the petitioner was unworthy before it was refused , or that it should be necessary to say it was worthy before it was granted . He for one was assured , and was content with that assurance , that the whole merits of the petition had
been investigated at the Board of Benevolence , and that Board , after such full and impartial investigation , had recommended the Grand Lodge to give thirty pounds to the petitioner . Was not that proof enough of the merit of the claims , ofthe opinion entertained by the investigators legally ancl properly constituted . They could have relieved the petitioner , but they did more ; they had gone into the enquiry , had obtained all the information , and acting upon that hacl suggested to the Grand Lodge
to relieve this case , i he recommendation of the Board was in itself sufficient to enable them , in the absence of reasons for refusal , to come to a decision in accordance with the Board , but if they wanted to go into the details they could have the petition read —( no , no , and cheers ) The GRAND MASTER could not allow the petition to be read ; it was addressed to the Board of Benevolence , ancl not to the Grand Lodge ; he thought the recommendation of the Board was in itself an investigation .
The amendment was put ancl negatived . Bro . M'MULLEN would now move that the petition be read ( laughter , and oh , oh)—it was a dangerous and bad precedent to proceed in this way . AVhat guarantee had they for the proper application of their funds . JBro . AVHITMORE warmly supported the motion . Several other Brothers spoke for and against the motion , which was put and carried with one dissentient .
After Bro . John Savage had replied , he pointed out that the law did not require the attendance of any Master of a Lodge to speak for country petitions . Bro . JOHN SAVAGE had now to propose that the sum of fifty pounds be granted to the widow of a Brother ofthe Alfred Lodge , Oxford . He was not in the same position in this case as he was in the last , for he hacl made himself fully acquainted with the subject of the motion ; and never had a lady , for such he could call her , come before Grand Lodge
to solicit its aid with greater claims than the one he represented . By education , by station , and by birth she was entitled to such appellation , and until the unfortunate failure of her husband , through the neglect and dishonesty of others , she had not anticipated the sad reverse that had taken place . She was afflicted in addition to poverty with blindness , having lost the sight of one eye , and partly that of the other , while tending a sick child . Bro . Savage made an impressive address , and pathetically asked the Brethren for their support . Bro . Dr . LANE , as a Member of the Lodge at Oxford , had known the deceased Brother , and could confirm all that had been asserted .