Original Correspondence.

Original Correspondence .

[ The Editor is not responsible for the opinions expressed bj Correspondent' .. ]

THE POWERS OF A GRAND MASTER . ( To thc Editor of The Freemason . ) DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —The letter of " J . B ., " of date i ith December , calls attention to facts of great importance as to the conduct of the Grand Lodge oi Scotland . They do not , however , in the

least degree affect the views expressed in my article , to which he refers , and which appeared in the columns of THE FREEMASON , as to the powers of a Grand Master . However much a Grand Master may have exceeded his powers , and however much a Grand Lodge may have submitted to him , thc

question as to his legitimate powers remains thc same , and Freemasons are only the more imperatively called to consider it , that they may vindicate their rights , and put an end to an assumption of despotic authority inconsistent with them . In my article on thc Powers of a Grand Master , I showed the

extent and limits of his powers , in accordance with the Landmarks and Laws of the Order ; and no facts , such as those stated or referred to by your correspondent " J . B ., " can change my opinion on this subject . I believe it to be true , however , as vour

correspondent states , that at the last quarterly communication ofthe Grand Lodge of Scotland in November , the Grand Master refused to allow a question to be brought in by a member , although the proposal to introduce it was supported by the signatures of upwards of three hundred brethren . 1 am

sorry to add , that when the brother who attempted to introduce this question began to speak , another brother , who had brought a dog with him into the Grand Lodge , teased the dog so as to cause it to bark , that the speaker might be annoyed and interrupted by the noise . This most unbrotherly and

un-Masonic conduct was not checked by the Grand Master , who certainly would not have exceeded his prerogative in checking it , and even , if necessary , in causing both the dog and its master to be turned out of the lodge . I believe it is also true , as " J . 13 . " states , that a

protest from a lodge was rejected by the Grand Master , who would not permit it to be read , and would not even hear it , although the protest was that of a lodge perfectly unanimous , and consisting of about 800 members , and the Master of thc lodge , supported by his two Wardens , appeared to present

it . When he attempted to clo so , lie was at once put to silence by the Grand Master , who exclaimed "Sit down , sir , " and declared that he would not permit a protest either to be read or received . The object was one of importance . It related to thc appointment of a dignified office-bearer , against

whom a complaint had been made indue form , some time previously , on account of alleged grave transgressions not only of Masonie law , but of the laws ofthe land , and ofthe moral law . Tlie office-bearer of Grand Lodge was , in fact , accused of crimes well-known to nearly thc whole of the Masonic

Fraternity throughout Scotland and England . It is not wonderful that members ofthe Grand Lodge should object to the continuance in office of a brother charged with grave offences , nor that lodges subordinate to Grand Lodge , and brethren throughout Scotland should express their disapprobation of

it . It is wonderful , on the contrary , that he should be shielded and protected by the Grand Lodge and the Grand Master , that he should be re-elected to his office , as he has recently been , and that all attempts to bring the subject fairly under the consideration of the Grand Lodge should be frustrated

by the exercise of an absolute and despotic authority on thc part ofthe Grand Master . I take it for granted that the Grand Master could not have acted as he has done , in suppressing the expression ofthe opinions and feelings of the brethren , who feel the existence of such charges against a high

officebearer to be a reproach to the Order , unless he were supported by a majority of those present in the Grand Lodge at tlie time . This is not a pleasant c insideration , however , in reference to the present condition of the Masonic body in Scotland . That the Freemasons of Scotland , generally , abhor such

crimes ns have been laid tothe charge of tlie brother in question , cannot for a moment be doubted . But there is something far wrong when their expression of their feelings on this subject is prevented in the Grand Lodge , and when , as if in contempt of it , the brother accused is re-elected to his officeand

main-, tained in all its honours . The fault , however , is not in thc Masonic body generally , but in the Grand Lodge itself , which does not fairly represent the brotherhood , notwithstanding the power that it has over it , and in its own meetings is governed bv a

mere clique , the proceedings of which mav be preconcerted , as has , indeed , been the case . Nothing can be more contrary to the principles of Freemasonry than this countenance given by thc Grand Lodge of Scotland to violations ofthe moral law and of the law of the land , such as have been

Original Correspondence.

already mentioned . I say , the countenance given to them , because , even if the accused brother be perfectly ^ innocent , the accusation has been made and no investigation has taken place , but every attempt to procure an investigation has been resisted . This may be the only method by which it

is possible to screen a guilty man ; but it is not thus that an innocent man would wish his case to be treated , and it is not thus that Freemasons can wish such a case to be treated , deeply concerning , as it does , the honour of their Order . We are bound as Freemasons to the strictest observance of the

moral law and of the law of the land ; it behoves us to see to it that the voice of the whole brotherhood be ever heard in support of both . What then is to be said , or what is to be thought of the Grand Lodge of Scotland by its actings signifies or seems to signify approval of conduct by which both are

grossly violated ? And this must be admitted to be the case , when a brother accused of such violation of both divine and moral law , is screened from tbe very investigation of the charges brought against him ; and whilst they are still uninvestigated , is reappointed to an important and dignified office , as

one in whom the Grand Lodge has the most perfect confidence , whom it delights to honour , and whose name , as enrolled in its list of office-bearers , it thinks honourable to itself . I have read in the Sermon on the Mount ( Matthew , v ., 19 ) these words — " Whosoever , therefore , shall break one of these

least commandments , and shall teach men so , he shall be called thc least in the kingdom of heaven . " Here , the teaching men to break a commandment is represented as even worse than the breaking of it . A man may , under the pressure of temptation , break a commandment , but to teach men so is

a more deliberate thing , and for which even thc excuse of temptation cannot be pleaded . But to take another view of the subject , wbich also is suggested by the letter of your correspondent "J . B , " the assertion of a despotic authority by thc Grand Master is utterly contrary to the

landmarks and to the very first principles of Freemasonry . Wc meet in a lodge or Grand Lodge as brethren , bound , indeed , to pay high respect to those whom we have elected to bigh office , and especially to the Master , or the Most Worshipful Grand Master , whom we are bound to obey in all

things proper to their office , and to support in their exercise of authority so long as they keep within the limits of the authority conferred upon them by thc laws of tlie Order . Liberty and order , brotherly equality and reverence for constituted authority are beautifully enjoined in the Masonic

system . But if a Master or a Grand Master exceeds his powers , forgets what is due to his brethren and acts in contravention of the laws , and even of thc ancient landmarks , it is no longer the duty of brethren to obey , but it is their duty to use all suitable means for putting a stop to such

usurpation and unmasonic despotism . In a lodge an appeal ought to be made to tlie Grand Lodge : in the Grand Lodge itself a protest ought to be made , and if , in an unwarrantable exercise of arbitarv power a Most Worshipful Grand Master should refuse to receive or permit such protest , and should

be for the moment countenanced in this by subservient brethren constituting the majority of the meeting , yet 1 believe his success can be only temporary , and that the discussion of the subject amongst Freemasons throughout all parts of thc country will soon bring him to a better sense of his

rcsponsibilites and duties , ofthe extent and limit of the authority which he really possesses , and ofthe purposes for which it is to be exercised . He will certainly be brought to know that he is not in a position like that of the Emperor of Russia , or of

the General ofthe Order of Jesuits , but rather like that of a Constitutional Sovereign , or the President of a Republic . It i . s a question of time merely , but it certainly cannot be a long time till the principles of Freemasonry are vindicated , and the rights of the brethren established .

"J . . " asks— "If the Grand Lodge wilfully neglect the laws they have made , not only for thc guidance of the Craft but they also are bound to obey , all having solemnly declared to support the same—if they break their O . B ., then what becomes of that part of the declaration where the candidate

is bound to abide by the laws of the Grand Lodge , so long as she retains thc ancient landmarks ofthe Order ? '' It is a very serious question , but one which 1 have no hesitation in answering . The obligation of obedience ceases , for there are mutual obligations , and the disregard of obligation on the

one side necessarily annuls it on the other . Lodges subordinate to the Grand Lodge ancl individual members of the Grand Lodge arc entitled to renounce their allegiance to thc Grand Lodge . This is not , however , to be hastily clone , and not until all

proper means of redress have been used , and used in vain . No lodge and no brother could be warranted in renouncing allegiance to the Grand Lodge because of a single act of unmasonic despotism or violation of a landmark , however great for the time being thc wrong clone . It is only if such conduct is

Original Correspondence.

persevered in on the part of the Grand Lodge , and if redress perseveringly sought by proper means is sought in vain , so that further effort to procure it seems hopeless , that this extreme step may with propriety be taken . Circumstances may be imagined in which it ought to be taken as the only

means left of vindicating Masonic principles rights and privileges , the only means of maintaining the honour of tbe Order , and of exhibiting its principles to the outer world in their purity and excellence . Such circumstances , however , I would fain think , are not likely to arise ; and they are

perhaps less likely to arise in the present than in any former age , the means of communication being so abundant throughout the country , and , indeed , through the whole world , and general opinion more easily expressed than heretofore , being more likely to produce a speedy and salutary effect even on

those who hold the highest positions . Of this 1 think the members ofthe Grand Lodge of Scotland and tbe Most Worshipful Grand Master may rest assured , that honourable men do not enter thc Brotherhood to be slaves , they will not submit to be snubbed and put to silence , when they attempt

to exercise their unquestionable Masonic privileges in introducing questions or making protests . Let it be but understood that such arc the rules on which a Lodge or Grand Lodge is conducted , and thc very men whom we would wish to see joining thc Brotherhood will refuse to do so . The only

candidates for admission would be the meanest of lackeys and footmen , or those who are worthy to associate with them . Such is not , however , the character of Freemasons in general ; they are free men , peaceable , obedient to the laws , and zealous

to maintain them ; loving order , but also loving liberty , and resolute to maintain their rights , whilst they seek not to exceed them in anything , and are ready to pay due respect to all constituted authority whether within their own body or in the nation to

which they belong . I remain , dear Sir and Brother , Yours fraternally , CIPES

( To the Editor of The Freemason . ) DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —I wish you most fraternally a happy new year , and while congratulating you on your past success , I also welcome the announcement that THE FREEMASON * for 1 S 70 is to be greatlv improved , both in paper and printing ,

At the same time I sincerely trust , that the improvement will extend to the " tone and type" of certain correspondents ; most especially do I hope this will be the case with " Leo . " At present he evidently considers his name as entitling him to roar down even- one . I look upon his writings as decidedly

unmasonic , ancl for these reasons , he is far too personal , expresses himself not only in an unfraternal , but at times even an abusive manner ; he also interferes with business that does not concern him , vide his letter headed "Gross Intolerance "; and above all , in his misguided zeal he is working

incalculable mischief by endeavouring to throw doubt and discredit on our ancient landmarks . His letters hitherto have destroyed , as far as I am concerned , nearly all the pleasure and interest I should otherwise have derived from thc journal of our Craft , ancl 1 clo pray that witli a new year , he

may become both more polite and more discreet . Having thus expressed my feelings on the subject , I shall not again trouble you on the same matter , so if" Leo , " as is possible , takes offence and growls , it will draw no answer from Yours fraternally , ECHO .

( To the Editor of The Freemason . ) DEAR SIR AND BROTHER . —Two weeks ago I wrote you a letter , urging that if a portrait of our M . W . G . M . be painted for the Grand Lodge of England , the selection of the artist should not be a " hole-and-corner" affair , but be entrusted to a

competent committee , so that an artist of wellknown fame , might be chosen to delineate for posterity , a likeness of our G . M . worthy of the Craft , of the man , the place , and of art itself . Are these conditions at present fulfilled ? By not acting on

my former letter much valuable time has been lost . But still there remains the opportunity for THE FREEMASON using whatever influence it has in a worthy cause . Yours fraternally , P . 18 " .

[ Reply next week . ]—Eli . /' . A QUERY . ( To the Editor of The Freemason . ) DEAR SIR AND IIROTHER ,- —Should Freemasons waics

at their festivals , toast H . R . H . the Prince 01 as a Mason ; if so , where should his name appear on the toast-list ? A PROVINCIAL BROTHER . [ Reply next week . } -ED , /•" .