Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
" If It Was One Of The ' Original Princi...
" If it was one of the ' original principles' of the Society that Directors were to make money by their offices , there certainly has been , so far , an abandonment of a principle . Brother Crucefix ( identified with the publication in page 385 ) , was connected with the Society at thetime when this ' original principle' seems to have been considered by him in force , and he appears to have been disposed to carry it out to the fullest extent . On the 23 rd March , 1839 , he notified to the other members ,
that he expected , by way of remuneration , 100 / . per annum , to increase , with the progress of the Association , up to 400 / . per annum , as a maximum , ancl that should his demise take place before that of Mrs . Crucefix , and within five years , she should receive 100 / . per annum for life . "
The hypothesis with which this extract commences is as discreditable to your reasoning faculty , if you retain any , as the conclusion is to your feelings ; you know that not a single entry exists , in the minutes of proceedings , declaratory of such principles , and that no proposition of the kind Was ever discussed ; unless it have been so since the Society got , with you , into its third state of change . Having , however , set up a supposition the very reverse of the fact ,
you proceed to apply it to the Editor of the Freemasons' Quarterly Review j saying , " he appears to have been disposed to carry it out to the fullest extent . " What is the truth ? Dr . Crucefix was never at any time announced or declared to . be a Director ; but it was from the first distinctly declared to , and understood by yourself , and I believe by all , without exception , that the correspondence of the Society should be expressly entrusted to him , and for which he should be suitably remunerated , and be held responsible to the Board !
From time to time announcements had been made , that certain parties named would stand as Directors . His name was never included . And on the 23 rd of March , the first list of Directors was formally arranged for the prospectus . There were present on that occasion , yourself , Dr . Crucefix , and Messrs . Bell , M'Mullen , Hanley , Head , and Dr . Granville . Among the other business of that day , you will find it recorded , that " it being considered that sufficient authority had been given by the respective partiesit was settled that the following names should
, appear with the prospectus , " and , after the enumeration of Presidents , & c , the Board of Directors was then declared to comprise : — " John Henderson , Esq ., as Chairman ; yourself , as Deputy Chairman ; Robert Gibson , Esq . ; Alfred Head , Esq . ; W . L . Hanley , Esq . ; John Hodgkinson , Esq . ; and R , H . Willett , Esq . " That the three last-named have since then withdrawn from the Society does not affect the question ; but if it had been contemplated that Dr . Crucefix should he on
the Board , why was he not mentioned then ? Trace the minute-book up to the second week in April , and you will perceive that I was often specially directed to send notices to the Directors , as a body , and to invite Dr . Crucefix , and Messrs . Bell and M'Mullen to attend ! Why this distinction ? Because Dr . Crucefix was not to be a member of the Board of Directors , but to have charge of the correspondence ; Mr . Bell was not to be a Directorbut what he has becomethe Solicitor ;
, , and Mr . M'Mullen was not to be a Director , but he was always intended to be one of the Auditors , and is so advertised ! I could give much additional evidence on that point ; but I must turn to the concluding part of the extract , and oppose to it a narrative of the facts as they occurred .
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
" If It Was One Of The ' Original Princi...
" If it was one of the ' original principles' of the Society that Directors were to make money by their offices , there certainly has been , so far , an abandonment of a principle . Brother Crucefix ( identified with the publication in page 385 ) , was connected with the Society at thetime when this ' original principle' seems to have been considered by him in force , and he appears to have been disposed to carry it out to the fullest extent . On the 23 rd March , 1839 , he notified to the other members ,
that he expected , by way of remuneration , 100 / . per annum , to increase , with the progress of the Association , up to 400 / . per annum , as a maximum , ancl that should his demise take place before that of Mrs . Crucefix , and within five years , she should receive 100 / . per annum for life . "
The hypothesis with which this extract commences is as discreditable to your reasoning faculty , if you retain any , as the conclusion is to your feelings ; you know that not a single entry exists , in the minutes of proceedings , declaratory of such principles , and that no proposition of the kind Was ever discussed ; unless it have been so since the Society got , with you , into its third state of change . Having , however , set up a supposition the very reverse of the fact ,
you proceed to apply it to the Editor of the Freemasons' Quarterly Review j saying , " he appears to have been disposed to carry it out to the fullest extent . " What is the truth ? Dr . Crucefix was never at any time announced or declared to . be a Director ; but it was from the first distinctly declared to , and understood by yourself , and I believe by all , without exception , that the correspondence of the Society should be expressly entrusted to him , and for which he should be suitably remunerated , and be held responsible to the Board !
From time to time announcements had been made , that certain parties named would stand as Directors . His name was never included . And on the 23 rd of March , the first list of Directors was formally arranged for the prospectus . There were present on that occasion , yourself , Dr . Crucefix , and Messrs . Bell , M'Mullen , Hanley , Head , and Dr . Granville . Among the other business of that day , you will find it recorded , that " it being considered that sufficient authority had been given by the respective partiesit was settled that the following names should
, appear with the prospectus , " and , after the enumeration of Presidents , & c , the Board of Directors was then declared to comprise : — " John Henderson , Esq ., as Chairman ; yourself , as Deputy Chairman ; Robert Gibson , Esq . ; Alfred Head , Esq . ; W . L . Hanley , Esq . ; John Hodgkinson , Esq . ; and R , H . Willett , Esq . " That the three last-named have since then withdrawn from the Society does not affect the question ; but if it had been contemplated that Dr . Crucefix should he on
the Board , why was he not mentioned then ? Trace the minute-book up to the second week in April , and you will perceive that I was often specially directed to send notices to the Directors , as a body , and to invite Dr . Crucefix , and Messrs . Bell and M'Mullen to attend ! Why this distinction ? Because Dr . Crucefix was not to be a member of the Board of Directors , but to have charge of the correspondence ; Mr . Bell was not to be a Directorbut what he has becomethe Solicitor ;
, , and Mr . M'Mullen was not to be a Director , but he was always intended to be one of the Auditors , and is so advertised ! I could give much additional evidence on that point ; but I must turn to the concluding part of the extract , and oppose to it a narrative of the facts as they occurred .