Status Of Past Masters.

quote a case ( of course assuming that P . Z , and Past Master are identical ) , viz ., I svas a petitioner for a nesv chapter ; I assisted in the consecration thereof , installed the principals , invested the officers , and from that day to this ( now about four ycars ) I have performed every installation and exaltation ceremony ; besides , in consequence of the

M . E . Z . being sometimes unable to be present , I have opened the chapter and presided over the meetings . I may say further that I have never missed one meeting of the chapter . I should like to knosv to whom the adage you so aptly quote , viz ., " Palmam qui meruit ferat , " applies in this case .

I have heard thc question argued thus . That there are certain swell lodges in London wherein it takes some years to reach the chair , and that it would be considered unjust to admit amongst their Past Masters a member of that lodge who goes to some other lodge and takes the rank of Past Master . Does it not seem almost an absurdity to think that a lodge can initiate a brother and meet him socially on equal grounds , vet at the same time place such a gulf

between the Past Master and ordinary members that he must pass through that idemic . il chair before he can be admitted amongst the charmed circle , or as you put it , " the good array of Past Masters . " I should think that they ought to be pleased to admit him , because he has gained that rank svithout blocking the way for some other brother . But the question arises , ought Grand Lodge to make laws to benefit these few lodges to thc detriment of all the rest ?

Lastly , I shall be very sorry to see any attempt made by the London brethren to upset the nesv law as passed , because it will seem as though they were acting in opposition to the provincial brethren , svhich to my mind will militate against the pood of our order by creating a divided feeling . More especially in regard to our Masonic Charities .

Already there are indications in many provinces that the London brethren are carrying matters with too high a hand , and suggestions keep cropping up that it is time the provinces looked after their own charities . Such an attempt therefore as you suggested a fortniuiht since will I feel sure sviden the breach which has already shown signs of opening . Apologising for trespassing so far upon your columns , 1 am , yours fraternally , MANCUNIUM .

To the Editor of the " Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — I cannot agree with you that it is better to leave things as they are in the present Book of Constitutions , svith so much doubt and invidiousness surrounding the question of the Status of Past Masters joining other lodges than their own . Nothing is more absurd than that a "Worshipful " brother should sit below other brethren liaving no

such prefix . We want the status distinctly defined , and not left to the whim or courtesy of a lodge to determine . V . W . Bro . Havers appealed to the Grand Registrar to support his argument that individual lodges had thc power to give a status or not to joining Past Masters . The Grand Registrar , however , svas much too good a lasvycrto commit himself to such a statement , and , if the face be an indication , felt himself in a considerable fix from the desire to

support Bro . Havers , and his inability , from a legal point of viesv , to do so . But the very fact that one lodge does one thing and another something different shows thc subject needs definition . But , further , you speak of the change suiting the " svell-to-do , " and not the humble , brother . I utterly fail to see the point . If a brother has the means and the inclination he will no doubt be a member of more lodges than one . Will a "Worshipful" brother svith

means seek to join one single lodge more because of his status and title ? It is not flattering to the Craft to suppose so . Unless therefore you could equalize means , your point docs not apply qua Past Masters . No doubt the London brethren have not the same experience of joining Past Masters from India and the Colonies as we have in the provinces , where our laboursvorn officers and civil servants return for rest , towns ' such

as Bath , Brighton , Cheltenham , Leamington , and others , in svhich there may be lodges , having the preference over the metropolis with many . And here crops up the difficulty as to status svhich must be put straight . I feel sure the provincial brethren svill contest the point to the end . We know nosv svhat to expect , no compromise ; but I doubt not

40 such good and true brethren will come up from many a province to record their conviction should occasion require as came up from Hampshire svhen the point was won . Bro . Brownrigg's amendment was a fair compromise , and as such I hope it may be accepted if opportunity occurs . — I remain , dear sir and brother , fraternally ycurs , JOHN A . LLOYD , P . P . G . Chap . Oxon and Wilts , P . M . 1533 .

To the Editor of the " Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — In your remarks on the subject of Past Masters in your last issue you hold out hopes of this being reconsidered , and for the sake of the character of Freemasonry this is " most devoutly to be wished . " We are taught that one of the grand principles upon which Freemasonry is founded is " Truth , " but if the old law is to be altered in

the svay proposed , you sweep away that principle and sanction " sailing under false colours . " Surely the brethren who voted for the alteration could not have looked upon it in that light . But that is the plain English of the matter . Let us hope that there are many thousands of Past Masters yet who svould scorn the false position which is

attempted to be forced on them , and that better counsels will in the end prevail . 1 have only touched on one point ; many other and forcible reasons may be brought forward against the proposed measures . 1 will not trespass further on your * . pace , but hope others more eloquent than myself will expose the evil before it is too late . —I remain , dear sir and brother , yours very truly and fraternally ,

JAMES FITZGERALD , P . M . Si Sec . 377 . P . P . G . R . Worcester . Kidderminster , August 25 th , 1883 .

To the Editor of the "Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — 1 am most sorry that great press of business has hindered my acknowledging before the kind manner in svhich you notice , though you do not accept , what I

proposed respecting the Status of Past Masters . 1 think , however , that in reality we both hold very nearly the same views of the matter . I was anxious to preserve to Past Masters of the lodge a position such as they had—superior to all others . 1 desired to define distinctly ( what Grand Lodge had already agreed to ) the position of joining Past Masters .

Status Of Past Masters.

I proposed to fix permanently the position of all joining Past Masters , making the order of precedence in a lodge thus—1 . The Worshipful Master . 2 . The Immediate Past Master . 3 . Patt Masters elected by the lodge to fill the chair . 4 . Past Masters elected by thc lodge as joining members .

5 . Senior Warden . C . Junior Warden . I never intended to claim for joining Past Masters a status equal to that of those who had been elected to the chair by the brethren of the lodge . 1 only wanted them to have some defined " status" in the lodr-c , and it seemed not unreasonable to fix the status

between the junior Past Master and the Senior Warden . Year by year thc brother elected to the chair would pass over all the joining Past Masters . My amendment was meant as an olive branch , to make peace between the two extreme sections—those who svould give joining Past Mas . ters nothing , and those who would give them too

much-To use your wo , ds , " Nothing can take from a Past Master his rank . " It was my object to make this clear . As a matter of fact , it has not been an uncommon thing to find even those privileges svhich common courtesy might grant obtrusively refused to joining Past Masters . —Believe me , yours very fraternally , J . STUDHOLME BROWNRIGG , P . G . C , D . P . G . M . Berks and Bucks .

To ' the Editor of thc "Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — Bro . Lees , to whose letter you refer your readers , svrites in your last edition " I do hope you svill . . . . impartially discuss the question , " Sic I heartily re-echo , and now hope and sincerely trust that if you cannot discuss it impartially you will at least give us who approve the

alteration the credit of honestly considering ourselves right and extend to us freedom of thought and speech , both of which you certainly in yourself practice , and the latter too dictatorially and somewhat uncourteously . For myself , believing as I do that all installed Masters ( I purposely avoid the term Past Masters ) rank before brethren svho have not been installed , I consider

that the alteration svhich awaits confirmation is required to stamp svith fitting honour in the Craft a brother of that rank , who , though a member , has not been Master of the lodge at which he is present ; and how can it possibly be better done than by acknowledging the equality of the rank of Installed Master as among themselves , and the superiority of that rank over that of the uninstalled

and , at the same differencing , the Installed Masters svho have and those svho have not been Masters of the lodge , by ranking all the latter the junior to all the former . I am proud of my rank as an Installed Master ; but 1 do not wish to overassert it by claiming an equality in lodge with an Installed Master who has filled the chair , which 1 have not , of a lodgeof svhich sve both are members ; but 1 do

ask of , as , " vice versa , " 1 would grant to , him acknosvledgment by the lodge of my rank and position in the Craft as an Installed Master . Why , if the alteration svhereby joining Installed Masters will rank after those who have filled the chair o ( the lodge be made , " no lodge svith a good array of Past Masters , and with any self-respect (!) , will henceforth admit joining Past

Masters you do not explain , and it is ( to quote another of the " classics" ) " a sort of thing no fellosv can understand . " We , in our lodge , are glad to welcome as joining members brethren svho have " taken rank , " and shall when this alteration be lasv yet more gladly do so , because sve shall feel that their rank in the Craft is duly acknowledged , and

their status in lodge authoritatively defined . —I enclose my card , and remain , faithfully and fraternally yours , 28 th August . THRtE-FOUR-ONE . P . S . —Past Masters of and in the lodge ( to use the term ) will be as clearly defined as ever ; but if the proposition svere to mix them and rank them according to their seniority the Craft , for many a reason , would oppose it .

To the Editor of the " Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — Though late in the day , svill you allosv me a svord on the somewhat vexed question of Past Masters as affected by the amendment carried at the last Grand Lodge ? I should not have intruded , but that I feel that the alteration proposed has not been so fully considered as it ought to

be . The discussion in Grand Lodge and the viesvs of some of your correspondents do not sufficiently approach the gravity of the whole question , and on one point scarcely touch it . I apprehend there is no lodge svhich svould svish for one moment to deprive a Past Master of his rank and dignity in whatever lodge he may enter , svhether as a visiting brother or a joining member .

But , to my mind , there is an objection much deeper than all this , and that is , to make a brother a Past Master of his mother lodge by virtue of his rank obtained elsewhere . Perhaps I can put svhat 1 mean more forcibly by way of illustration . A brother is not sufficiently popular in his mother lodge to pass the chair , or even to get a qualification for it . Being impatient , or ambitious , he joins another lodge , or else promotes a new one , and there succeeds in

passing the chair . Of course , as at present , he would rank as a Past Master in the lodge ; but , if the amendment is confirmed , it enables him to come back to his mother lodge a Past Master of the lodge , in spite of them . This seems to me not only unfair , but unmasonic and unjust ; I therefore hope , for the sake of the unity and harmony of the Craft , such an amendment will not become a pare of our new Constitutions . —Yours fraternally , G . CHAPMAN , W . M . 47 .

THE SO-CALLED GRAND LODGE OF VICTORIA . To the Editor of the "Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — Being a little "behind the scenes , " I think I can throw a little lig ht on some very queer proceedings in respect of this la * . t professed Masonic " mushroom , " which is neither pleasant nor edible , but seems rather to be one ol

the less wholesome "fungus tribe . " The wholeis a theatrical proceeding , and a speculation got up to produce an effect and do a little business . There is nothing real , nothing spontaneous about it . It is dominated by a foreign element , indifferent if not actually hostile to English Masonic supremacy . It must end as many a farce does , in a fiasco . It has neither a company suited to " the piece" nor are its principal members equal to leading

Status Of Past Masters.

characters . It probably has the very heavy old man of domestic tragedy , and one or two elderly ladies "equal to the occasion , " but it is pretty certain ere long to play to empty houses . I , for one , think nothing of the factitious getting up , and the assembly of other Masons of high-sounding titles . If the old Latin adage be ever good , " Nosciturasuciis" ( excuse me for quoting a dead language ) , sve may judge of the

likely future progress of this last bantling ot Masonic revolution by its association svith the chief officials of another clandestine Grand Lodge , repudiated formally by unanimous vote ofthe Grand Lodgeof England . We have nothing to do in England with American laws of recognition ; sve are governed by our own old sensible English law , from svhich we move not . It argues no little "cheek" in truth , thus to isrnofe 75 Enslisli Iodizes not one of svhich , though

unjustifiably alluded to , takes part in the movement , and affect to foim a Grand Ludge for Victoria out of a fesv Scottish and Irish lodges . It is the old story of New South VVales over again , only a great deal worse , and it need be no matter of surprise to the loyal English Masons in Victoria , that as a "fellow feeling makes us wondrous kind , " so the " golden youth" of this latest experiment in

Grand Lodge manufacture , got their" fellow ehips" from New South VVales to swell their numbers and " mingle in the fray . " It it all impurtant to New South Wales to have a partner in secession . One of the greatest blots is the improper use of the names of English and Irish lodges , as it shows great " inaccuracy in quotation , " to say nothing more severe . —Yours fraternally , ANTIPODES .

THE HISTORY OF ST . MARY'S LODGE . —A CORRECTION . To the Editor of the "Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — The kindly notice you have taken of the history of this lodge , published for private circulation , compels me to ask permission to intrude further upon your space . Our number is not 76 , but 53 . As 63 , sve ss'erc warranted in 1757 , and after holding the numbers 86 and

76 we again became 63 at the last excision . If there be any other lodge svhich at different epochs has tsvice held thc same number , 1 shall be glad to be made acquainted svith the fact . And secondly , our volume is jointly edited , not by Bros . Wilmer and Hollingn-orth , P . Ms ., but by Bro . George Kelly , F . R . G . S ., F . R . M . S ., P . M . and Treasurer , and by Yours fraternally , WILMER HOLLINGWORTH . P . M . and Secretary . August 27 th , 1 SS 3 .

Reviews

REVIEWS

ANNALS OF THE GRAND LODGE OF IOWA . Vol . IX . Part I . 1 SS 3 . This record of the operations and progress of a distinguished American Grand Lodge svould be interesting in itself , as all such reports are to the Masonic student , but this volume is rendered doubly valuable by the catalogue of Bro . Bower ' s library . Bro . Bower svas a Masonic book

collector of no mean information , of sound views , and blessed svith a full purse , he managed to gather together , taking it " all round , " a library " unique " in itself and of which sve heartily congratulate the Grand Lodge of Iowa as being now the fortunate possessors . It is of course impossible in our limited space to print the names of a collection of books svhich takes 112 large octavo pages in

the report . This nesv collection added to the old renders the Grand Lodge of Iowa the holder of one of the finest Masonic libraries in the svorld ; in fact , in some respects , we doubt if it can be equalled . Bro . Bower spared neither time nor expense in finding and procuring rare and out-ofthe-way svorks , and every page of the catalogue shews svith what care and interest he had studied Masonic book catalogues , and how perseveringly he must have sought out

the volumes he attained often at no inconsiderable cost . Some ot the svorks in his catalogues are all but unprocurable , and many of the older " tractates" are quite unique or undiscoverable . We congratulate the Grand Lodge of Iowa on such a valuable library ; in fact , ive would say invaluable , and can realize with hosv much gratification our able and courteous Bro . Parvin , the energetic Grand Secretary of Iowa , announces this honourable and important fact to the Masonic svorld .

MASONIC HOME JOURNAL . Louisville , U . S . A . We are glad to hail Nos . 1 and 2 of this new Masonic semi-monthly paper . It is printed by the Masonic Widosvs and Orphans' Home , Louisville , Kentucky , and svhich seems to be a most useful , practical , and thorough institution , reflecting all credit on its founders and supporters , and svhich sve trust svill prosper accordingly . It seems to be completely self-contained , and is meant to be almost self-supporting . We svish our contemporary all success .

Masonic Notes And Queries.

Masonic Notes and Queries .

221 ] ST . MARY'S LODGE , No . 7 G . With reference to your review of it <* history in last Freemason , did the editors read Bro . Gould's mnst useful work , "The Atholl Lodges ? " There it is stated that in 1774 /

September 7 th , the svarrant of No . 175 was " cancelled , and that six members svere allowed to join No . 63 from No . 125 before the warrant was cancelled . The lodge seems to have metatthe White Hart , Bowc , Middlesex ; but why it took the name of " St . Mary " does not anywhere appear . Can anyone explain ? W . V .

222 ] JOHN HEATH GOLDSWORTHY . 1 his Masonic worthy svas initiated in No . 194 , not 94 , * stated in Bro . Gould's most accurate " Atholl Lodges . Very likely the " 1 " has slipped out . I noticed this slight correction when perusing that invaluable little svork the other day , | for another purpose . VV . "•