Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
The Thirtieth Of October, 1840.—Conclusion Of The Case Of Dr. Crucefix.
" That Bro . Dr . Robert Thomas Crueefix having written the letter to H . R . H . the Grand Master , and published the proceedings of the Grand Lodge in June last under great excitement , and believing himself to be innocent of the charges which had been made against him , ancl he having apologised for so doing , it is not expedient that Grand Lodge should proceed any further in the matter . "
Bro . BOND CABBELL suggested that , as the terms of the apology were not deemed to be satisfactory , it would be better that three of the opposite party and three of Bro . Crucefix ' s friends should be appointed by Grand Lodge to retire , and agree to the terms in which the apology should be framed , in order that the time of Grand Lodge might be saved .
Bro . LEE STEVENS submitted that a more certain plan of prolonging theconsideration of the subject could not be devised . It was with great difficulty that several of Brother Crucefix ' s friends , seeing the provocation he had received , could agree to the necessity of apologising in the very ample terms proposed . How , then , could it be expected that they would consent to add a tittle more ? On the other hand , it was equally clear that unanimity of opinion was out of the question , for the first
Brother who hacl addressed Grand Lodge on the subject , admitted that the apology was all that he could wish , as far as the Grand Master and the Grand Lodge were concerned—an opinion , it would appear , from ivhich others on his side of the question differed very strongly—and yet he wanted Brother Crueefix to apologise to the Board of General Purposes , although lie had not been called upon to answer for any offence against that bod y ! He ( Brother Stevens ) wondered that the point was
not stretched a little further , and the worthy Brother asked to apologise not merely for charges that had not been made against him , but for any offences he mi ght possibly be charged with hereafter . In principle the absurdity was equal ; in practice it was only a question of degree . Bro . Stevens concluded by observing that the Grand Lodge ought not to expect from Brother Crueefix such an apology as a gentleman as well as a Mason could not give ; for any thing which tended to degrade the
apologist , took proportionately from the dignity of those who received it . Bro . BOND CABBELL observed that the worthy Brother who hacl just sat clown , had misconceived him , if he supposed him to have offered any opinion upon the terms of the proposed apology . Bro . LEE STEVENS accepted the correction , as far as his observations could be said to apply to the Junior Grand Warden . Bro . HENRY UDALL , who was first interrupted by a claim of
precedence from Brother Isaac Walton , which the Deputy Grand Master decided against the latter , then contended at some length , that the apology was , as it was intended to be , as ample and particular as the nature of the offence could possibly demand . Bro . ISAAC WALTON said he was by no means satisfied with the apology offered to the consideration of Grand Lodge , and expressed his surprise at the gratuitous assumption ofthe Brother opposite ( Brother
, Lee Stevens , ) that Brother Crueefix was not called upon to apologise to the Board of General Purposes , and read a part of the report of that Board , in proof of the necessity for such an apology . Bro . LEE STEVENS . —The woithy Brother cannot distinguish the proceedings of the Board , ivhich were introductory , from the resolutions submitted to the Grand Lodge , which are the result . VOL . vu . 3 x
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
The Thirtieth Of October, 1840.—Conclusion Of The Case Of Dr. Crucefix.
" That Bro . Dr . Robert Thomas Crueefix having written the letter to H . R . H . the Grand Master , and published the proceedings of the Grand Lodge in June last under great excitement , and believing himself to be innocent of the charges which had been made against him , ancl he having apologised for so doing , it is not expedient that Grand Lodge should proceed any further in the matter . "
Bro . BOND CABBELL suggested that , as the terms of the apology were not deemed to be satisfactory , it would be better that three of the opposite party and three of Bro . Crucefix ' s friends should be appointed by Grand Lodge to retire , and agree to the terms in which the apology should be framed , in order that the time of Grand Lodge might be saved .
Bro . LEE STEVENS submitted that a more certain plan of prolonging theconsideration of the subject could not be devised . It was with great difficulty that several of Brother Crucefix ' s friends , seeing the provocation he had received , could agree to the necessity of apologising in the very ample terms proposed . How , then , could it be expected that they would consent to add a tittle more ? On the other hand , it was equally clear that unanimity of opinion was out of the question , for the first
Brother who hacl addressed Grand Lodge on the subject , admitted that the apology was all that he could wish , as far as the Grand Master and the Grand Lodge were concerned—an opinion , it would appear , from ivhich others on his side of the question differed very strongly—and yet he wanted Brother Crueefix to apologise to the Board of General Purposes , although lie had not been called upon to answer for any offence against that bod y ! He ( Brother Stevens ) wondered that the point was
not stretched a little further , and the worthy Brother asked to apologise not merely for charges that had not been made against him , but for any offences he mi ght possibly be charged with hereafter . In principle the absurdity was equal ; in practice it was only a question of degree . Bro . Stevens concluded by observing that the Grand Lodge ought not to expect from Brother Crueefix such an apology as a gentleman as well as a Mason could not give ; for any thing which tended to degrade the
apologist , took proportionately from the dignity of those who received it . Bro . BOND CABBELL observed that the worthy Brother who hacl just sat clown , had misconceived him , if he supposed him to have offered any opinion upon the terms of the proposed apology . Bro . LEE STEVENS accepted the correction , as far as his observations could be said to apply to the Junior Grand Warden . Bro . HENRY UDALL , who was first interrupted by a claim of
precedence from Brother Isaac Walton , which the Deputy Grand Master decided against the latter , then contended at some length , that the apology was , as it was intended to be , as ample and particular as the nature of the offence could possibly demand . Bro . ISAAC WALTON said he was by no means satisfied with the apology offered to the consideration of Grand Lodge , and expressed his surprise at the gratuitous assumption ofthe Brother opposite ( Brother
, Lee Stevens , ) that Brother Crueefix was not called upon to apologise to the Board of General Purposes , and read a part of the report of that Board , in proof of the necessity for such an apology . Bro . LEE STEVENS . —The woithy Brother cannot distinguish the proceedings of the Board , ivhich were introductory , from the resolutions submitted to the Grand Lodge , which are the result . VOL . vu . 3 x