-
Articles/Ads
Article CAPTAIN WEBB. ← Page 2 of 2 Article THE COSMOPOLITAN MASONIC CALENDAR, DIARY, AND POCKET BOOK FOR 1876. Page 1 of 1 Article Original Correspondence. Page 1 of 2 Article Original Correspondence. Page 1 of 2 Article Original Correspondence. Page 1 of 2 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Captain Webb.
it only exhibits endurance of an exceptional character under exceptional conditions . " We believe also , that that is all we can lay down from this "fait accompli , " as regards either its distinct importance or practical value . But still the fact remains a fact , reflecting ; the very
highest credit on the skill , and courage , and determination , and endurance of the plucky swimmer , and proving also completely what well trained energies are capable of and what physical strength and condition can accomplish . We note that Lord Stanhope recommends a
subscription to be set on foot , and that Captain Webb has been warmly received at a meeting at Dover . , We wish the captain all prosperity ; may " good luck " attend him , and may he in his future career meet with all the success , which indomitable perseverance can expect , or unshrinking courage can obtain .
The Cosmopolitan Masonic Calendar, Diary, And Pocket Book For 1876.
THE COSMOPOLITAN MASONIC CALENDAR , DIARY , AND POCKET BOOK FOR 1876 .
A form has been forwarded within the last twelve or fourteen days to the W . M . of every London lodge , respectfull y requesting that the name and number of the lodge , place , day and
months of meeting , might be filled in and returned as speedily as possible , in order that corrections , where needed , may be made ki the Diary and Pocket Book for 1876 , which will be ready about October 1 st . As many lodges do not re-assemble
until October and November , a large numberof the applications will not unfortunately reach the W . M . until too late for the publication . The publisher will therefore be very thankful to any W . M .
or other officer , or members , who will favour him by forwarding the above information as early as possible to the Office , 198 , Fleet Street , London . A regular . form will be sent , when required , on receipt of name and address .
Original Correspondence.
Original Correspondence .
I We do not hold ourselves responsible for , or even as approving or the opinions expressed hy our correspondents , but we wish , in a spirit of fair piay to all , to permit—within certain necessary limits—free discussion . —ED . 1
MINUTES AND THEIR CONFIRMATION . To the Editor qftlie Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — Will you kindly once more grant me space to thank Brother " P . G . W . " for his fraternal reply to my letter , which , howev . r , I am bound to say , so far from convincing me that my formerly expressed view about tha
election of W . M . is wrong , entirely confirms me in my opinion that it is right j indeed , bn examination , I btlijve that it will be apparent that " P . G . W . ' s " quotations entirely bear out my reading of the law of the case . " The Constitutions , " says " P . G . W ., " " provide that certain matters shall not be binding , unless they have been proposed , seconded , and carried at one meeting , and
have been confirmej at the next ensuing meeting" ( see p . 28 , section 8 ) . " The matters stated to require confirmation are few , but important , and it is from their very importance that they are made to require confirmation , e . g ., the election of Master , from the Grand Master downwards ,. grants of money , " & c , & c . Now , what do we find to be the case ? In the first place
" p . 28 , section 8 , " refers to Grand Lodge and Grand Lodge only , the points contained in it ( money grants by committee of G . L . and alterations of laws ) being , besides , matters which could by no possible chance come under the cognizance of any subordinate lodge , whilst , in the second place , no mention whatever is made of the election of Master , whether Grand or otherwise . This section is ,
therefore , entirely out of court ; besides which , just mark that the actions there defined to require confirmation by a second Grand Lodge are those upon which the former Grand Lodge voted immediately upon their being put from the chair without any previous notice . Now , this is not the case with regard to the election of Grand Master ( which , I admit most willingly , is a
precedent to be followed by every subordinate lodge ) , for what do we find in page 29 , section 1 ? The Grand Master is to be nominated ( not elected ) at one G . L ., elected at the next , and then installed , but without any second election at the ensuing festival . Is not this exactly what 1 say should be done , and more , I believe , usually is done ? What I dispute is that any second election is legal . Again , any member may nominate a second candidate
at the first meeting , whilst an adverse majority may reject the nominee at the second . Surely there is here ample scope for disaffection or opposition . I might stop here did 1 not feel that one other dictum of " P . G . W . " needs comment . Further on he says : — " This provision " ( confirmation of election by means of " confirmation of minutes" ) " is made not only for the purpose of assuring time for due consideration of so important
Original Correspondence.
a matter , but that every member may have the opportunity of recording his vote at , at least , one or other of the meetings . " Now , this seems to me to be perfectly unnecessary . Surely the month between nomination and election is ample time for due consideration of the matter , if , indeed , the consideration of it has been so long delayed . Surelv , two
consecutive meetings are sufficient in which to bring a well-founded opposition to bear , whilst , again , the course which 1 call illegal seems to provide an unnecessary opportunity of stultifying both Master elect and lodge by allowing one to take up a rule of which he may be capriciously deprived , and by the other submitting to and afterwards subverting an authoiity which the fundamental laws of Masonry declare to be absolute .
Once more , Grand Lodge , or any other lodge , must be ruled by its written law so long as it exists . If its law be wrong , let it be altered ; if it be doubtful , let if not onlymake an authoritative declaration of what its law intends , but let it also revise those other portions of it which make it seem conflicting . I remain , dear Sir and Brother , ' fraternally and faithfully yours , WILLIAM TEHUS . Caterham Valley , Aug . 24 th , 1875 .
P . S . —Since sending my letter Bro . Ohren ' s reply has appeared . I think the above will apply to his observations , which are simply a re-iteration , without further proof , of those of Bro . " P . G . W . "
THE POWERS OF W . MASTERS . To the Editor of the Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — I have been asked to reply to a letter on the above subject , signed " An Absent W . M ., " which appears in your issue of 28 th ult . I find some little difficulty in doing so satisfactorily to
myself , because I do not quite understand , nor do I think that the writer can nimself quite understand , the full extent of the questions which he has put . He asks for an " opinion as to the extent of the control which a W . M . possesses over his lodge , " & c , & c , and he then goes on to particularize two cases . I will , with your permission , deal with the latter first .
Me writes , " It often happens that a Master is temporarily absent from his lodge on account of sickness or other passing emergency , and what I want to know is whether such absence deprives him of all power and authority over his lodge . " He then proceeds to the two questions—1 st , " Mas the lodge , for instance , any right to refuse to obey his directions that he should be regularly furnished with a
copy of the summons for each meeting . ' " The answer to this would be clearly , No , but this answer must be qualified , because the lodge ( as lodge ) has nothing to do with it ; it is the duty of the Secretary , by the Master ' s directions , to summon all members to each meeting of the lodge , and , therefore , the W . M . must be summoned as well as all the rest .
The second question is , " Has the lodge any right to refuse to obey his directions that he shall be regularly furnished with a report of the proceedings thereat , in order that he may be kept acquainted with all that was going on during his absence : " If the question thus worded means , has the Master a right to inspect the minute book and all other books
and documents of the lodge , and thus make himself acquainted with what has taken place during his absence ? the reply must unquestionably be in the affirmative . The Master not only has such right , but he is really the custodian of all such books and documents , and he is the person who is bound to produce them : see p . 61 ) . sec . 23 ( " The warrant and books and papers belonging to the
lodge must be produced by the Master when required by competent authority " ) , and so also at p . 78 , sec . 5 ( " The Master is responsible for the due observance of the laws relating to private lodges , and is bound to produce all books , minutes and accounts , when required by lawful authority , " ) If he is bound to produce them he is entitled to hold
them ; if he holds them he can make himself acquainted with their contents . But if the question means , can a Master who , by intention or even from necessity , is absent from his lodge , require any individual member of his lodge to send him a report of its proceedings . ' I apprehend that the answer must be in the negative . I presume that there is something more in the question
than meets the eye . T here are Masters and Masters . I believe and hope that in nineteen out of every twenty cases , where things go pleasantly , as they generally do in lodge , that when a W . M ., either from " sickness or other pressing emergency , " has been absent from his lodge , any or all of his brethren would be only too . willing to make him acquainted with its proceedings , and to take his advice on
all matters touching its interests . There may be cases where a W . M . has very exaggerated notions as to his powers , and may have so stretched his authority or have exercised it so disagreeably that no one of the members may care to inform him as to the proceedings which have taken place in his absence , and in such case , subject , as I have said , to his light to inspect all books ,
papers , & c , I repeat that , in my opinion , he has no power to compel any one to report to him as to the proceedings of the lodge . Having thus dealt , and I hope satisfactorily , with these two questions , I now revert to the general and somewhat vague question , viz .: — " What is the extent of the control which a W . M . possesses over his lodge , and what
constitutes incapability of discharging the duties of his office , other than by death or removal Whether his absence deprives him of all power and authority over his lodge ? " Before this question can be answered satisfactorily we must know what is meant by the term " control " ( I leave out , or rather I include , " power and authority , " because I
Original Correspondence.
presume that they arc all three intended to mean one and thej same thing ) . I hold that a W . M . has full control over his lodge , provided that the meaning of that word is limited to one of the definitions given to it by Johnson , viz ., " superintendence . " In every body of men there must be some one who is responsible . The Master , in truth , is but a superintending officer , placed at the head of a lodge , not
to carry out any exercise of his own free will , but to see that the laws of the Craft are faithfully observed , and its rites duly administered . The office of Master involves a great deal of responsibility , and gives but little control further than superintendence . He pledges himself " faithfully , zealously , and impartially to perforin the duties of the lodge , " and that he will administer the rites , & c ., & c , and
preserve our ancient landmarks . But does this give him any power , or control , or authority , further than thfit ot superintendence ? I answer , Certainly not . He is there not to do his own will , but to sec that all things are done in order , and that the general laws of the Craft and the particular bye-laws of the lodge arc duly observed . Our laws contemplate the presence of the W . M ., though
they provide for his absence : see p . 7 8 , section 6 , " In the Master ' s absence the immediate Past Master , or , if he be absent , the Senior Past Master present , shall take the chair , " ( Src , iSrc . The Master not being present at a meeting cannot superintend the proceedings of the lodge , and , therefore , he cannot control it ; the authority in such case , or , rather , the responsibility , then rests with the Immediate
P . M ., or Senior P . M ., or whoever by the law is entitled to rule the lodge in the absence of the W . M . A lodge is a pure republic , electing for convenience sake certain officers , clothing them with a certain rank , and investing them with a very slight authority , but retaining its government in its own hands . Thus at p . 80 , section 4 , we read , " The majority of the members present at any
lodge duly summoned have an undoubted right to regulate their own proceedings , provided that they are consistent with the general laws and regulations of the Craft . Here the lodge does the act , the Master only sees that it is properly done . Again , at p . fiij , sec . 24 , " The majority of the members of a lodge , when congregated , have the privilege of giving instructions to their Master , the
Immediate Past Master , and Wardens , before the meeting of Grand Lodge , because such officers are the representatives , and arc supposed to speak their sentiments . " Here the lodge directs what is to be done , and the Master does it . It is true that the Master has some little power granted to him in addition to that possessed by all other members , e . g ., he may , when the votes are equally divided , give a
casting vote , except in the case of election of a candidate for initiation or a brother to join : p . 62 , sec . 2 ., He is constituted the judge of the necessity or otherwise for holding a | lodge of emergency , and may give ov refuse his consent to it , but in his absence the power merges into other hands , viz .: those of the Senior Warden , or in his absence the Junior Warden . See p . 64 , sec . 0 .
The Master , then , is made for the lodge , not the lodge for the Master . As regards the singular question ( or rather deduction from a question supposed to be previously answered ) with which " An Absent W . M . " concludes his letter , I can only remark that as the W . Masters who attended the installation of H . R . H . did so in obedience to the summons issued to them by their superior authority , the Grand Lodge , they could not , and did not , lose any
privileges to which they were otherwise entitled as W . Masters . If their lodges were not meeting at that particular day they wanted 110 control , and therefore the W . Masters lost nothing . If the lodges were meeting , the W . M . ' s , not being present , could not superintend the proceedings , and therefore their authority devolved upon some other officers for that
time . I apologize for ^ the length to which I have unavoidably been led . P . G . W .
FREEMASONRY AND ITS DETRACTORS . To the Editor of the Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — I am sure the brethren who perused the two articles in your columns of Saturday the 21 st inst ., under the heads " Sermons against Freemasonry , " and "The Union Review , " cannot but feel honoured with having read such a noble exposition of the errors perpetrated by a class of
nobodies who presume to denounce a society strong in its humanity , truth , innocence , utility , and above all charity . I do not wish to occupy your space in condemning the conduct of persons who do not actually know anything , practically , of the subject , but merely eke out their illogical abuse in order to gratify a misguided animus . 1 am Sir , your faithful brother , A MASTER MASON . Eccles , August 25 th , 1875 .
SIR CHRISTOPHER WREN . To the Editor of the Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — At page , 382 "A Masonic Student" asserts that I " will not have the pre-1717 Freemasonry at any price , " and adds that I " shut my eyes to the fact of indubitable history . " Newthis way of putting it is highly calculated
, to mislead , and not only so , but I beg to state that both statements arc most decidedly untrue . The fact is that I not only admit the existence of a " pre-1717 Freemasonry , " but I admit the existence of two " pre-1717 Freemasonries , " viz .: the operative Freemasonry of the 14 th , ot
15 th , and 1 fith centuries , and the social Freemasonry the 17 th century . Another Freemasonry , however , sprang up in the 18 th century , and what I " will not have " is that this 18 th century Freemasonry—or " our Freemasonry , ' as it has lately been termed—existed before 1717 . Ashmole and Plot might both be acquainted with a Freemasonry—
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Captain Webb.
it only exhibits endurance of an exceptional character under exceptional conditions . " We believe also , that that is all we can lay down from this "fait accompli , " as regards either its distinct importance or practical value . But still the fact remains a fact , reflecting ; the very
highest credit on the skill , and courage , and determination , and endurance of the plucky swimmer , and proving also completely what well trained energies are capable of and what physical strength and condition can accomplish . We note that Lord Stanhope recommends a
subscription to be set on foot , and that Captain Webb has been warmly received at a meeting at Dover . , We wish the captain all prosperity ; may " good luck " attend him , and may he in his future career meet with all the success , which indomitable perseverance can expect , or unshrinking courage can obtain .
The Cosmopolitan Masonic Calendar, Diary, And Pocket Book For 1876.
THE COSMOPOLITAN MASONIC CALENDAR , DIARY , AND POCKET BOOK FOR 1876 .
A form has been forwarded within the last twelve or fourteen days to the W . M . of every London lodge , respectfull y requesting that the name and number of the lodge , place , day and
months of meeting , might be filled in and returned as speedily as possible , in order that corrections , where needed , may be made ki the Diary and Pocket Book for 1876 , which will be ready about October 1 st . As many lodges do not re-assemble
until October and November , a large numberof the applications will not unfortunately reach the W . M . until too late for the publication . The publisher will therefore be very thankful to any W . M .
or other officer , or members , who will favour him by forwarding the above information as early as possible to the Office , 198 , Fleet Street , London . A regular . form will be sent , when required , on receipt of name and address .
Original Correspondence.
Original Correspondence .
I We do not hold ourselves responsible for , or even as approving or the opinions expressed hy our correspondents , but we wish , in a spirit of fair piay to all , to permit—within certain necessary limits—free discussion . —ED . 1
MINUTES AND THEIR CONFIRMATION . To the Editor qftlie Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — Will you kindly once more grant me space to thank Brother " P . G . W . " for his fraternal reply to my letter , which , howev . r , I am bound to say , so far from convincing me that my formerly expressed view about tha
election of W . M . is wrong , entirely confirms me in my opinion that it is right j indeed , bn examination , I btlijve that it will be apparent that " P . G . W . ' s " quotations entirely bear out my reading of the law of the case . " The Constitutions , " says " P . G . W ., " " provide that certain matters shall not be binding , unless they have been proposed , seconded , and carried at one meeting , and
have been confirmej at the next ensuing meeting" ( see p . 28 , section 8 ) . " The matters stated to require confirmation are few , but important , and it is from their very importance that they are made to require confirmation , e . g ., the election of Master , from the Grand Master downwards ,. grants of money , " & c , & c . Now , what do we find to be the case ? In the first place
" p . 28 , section 8 , " refers to Grand Lodge and Grand Lodge only , the points contained in it ( money grants by committee of G . L . and alterations of laws ) being , besides , matters which could by no possible chance come under the cognizance of any subordinate lodge , whilst , in the second place , no mention whatever is made of the election of Master , whether Grand or otherwise . This section is ,
therefore , entirely out of court ; besides which , just mark that the actions there defined to require confirmation by a second Grand Lodge are those upon which the former Grand Lodge voted immediately upon their being put from the chair without any previous notice . Now , this is not the case with regard to the election of Grand Master ( which , I admit most willingly , is a
precedent to be followed by every subordinate lodge ) , for what do we find in page 29 , section 1 ? The Grand Master is to be nominated ( not elected ) at one G . L ., elected at the next , and then installed , but without any second election at the ensuing festival . Is not this exactly what 1 say should be done , and more , I believe , usually is done ? What I dispute is that any second election is legal . Again , any member may nominate a second candidate
at the first meeting , whilst an adverse majority may reject the nominee at the second . Surely there is here ample scope for disaffection or opposition . I might stop here did 1 not feel that one other dictum of " P . G . W . " needs comment . Further on he says : — " This provision " ( confirmation of election by means of " confirmation of minutes" ) " is made not only for the purpose of assuring time for due consideration of so important
Original Correspondence.
a matter , but that every member may have the opportunity of recording his vote at , at least , one or other of the meetings . " Now , this seems to me to be perfectly unnecessary . Surely the month between nomination and election is ample time for due consideration of the matter , if , indeed , the consideration of it has been so long delayed . Surelv , two
consecutive meetings are sufficient in which to bring a well-founded opposition to bear , whilst , again , the course which 1 call illegal seems to provide an unnecessary opportunity of stultifying both Master elect and lodge by allowing one to take up a rule of which he may be capriciously deprived , and by the other submitting to and afterwards subverting an authoiity which the fundamental laws of Masonry declare to be absolute .
Once more , Grand Lodge , or any other lodge , must be ruled by its written law so long as it exists . If its law be wrong , let it be altered ; if it be doubtful , let if not onlymake an authoritative declaration of what its law intends , but let it also revise those other portions of it which make it seem conflicting . I remain , dear Sir and Brother , ' fraternally and faithfully yours , WILLIAM TEHUS . Caterham Valley , Aug . 24 th , 1875 .
P . S . —Since sending my letter Bro . Ohren ' s reply has appeared . I think the above will apply to his observations , which are simply a re-iteration , without further proof , of those of Bro . " P . G . W . "
THE POWERS OF W . MASTERS . To the Editor of the Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — I have been asked to reply to a letter on the above subject , signed " An Absent W . M ., " which appears in your issue of 28 th ult . I find some little difficulty in doing so satisfactorily to
myself , because I do not quite understand , nor do I think that the writer can nimself quite understand , the full extent of the questions which he has put . He asks for an " opinion as to the extent of the control which a W . M . possesses over his lodge , " & c , & c , and he then goes on to particularize two cases . I will , with your permission , deal with the latter first .
Me writes , " It often happens that a Master is temporarily absent from his lodge on account of sickness or other passing emergency , and what I want to know is whether such absence deprives him of all power and authority over his lodge . " He then proceeds to the two questions—1 st , " Mas the lodge , for instance , any right to refuse to obey his directions that he should be regularly furnished with a
copy of the summons for each meeting . ' " The answer to this would be clearly , No , but this answer must be qualified , because the lodge ( as lodge ) has nothing to do with it ; it is the duty of the Secretary , by the Master ' s directions , to summon all members to each meeting of the lodge , and , therefore , the W . M . must be summoned as well as all the rest .
The second question is , " Has the lodge any right to refuse to obey his directions that he shall be regularly furnished with a report of the proceedings thereat , in order that he may be kept acquainted with all that was going on during his absence : " If the question thus worded means , has the Master a right to inspect the minute book and all other books
and documents of the lodge , and thus make himself acquainted with what has taken place during his absence ? the reply must unquestionably be in the affirmative . The Master not only has such right , but he is really the custodian of all such books and documents , and he is the person who is bound to produce them : see p . 61 ) . sec . 23 ( " The warrant and books and papers belonging to the
lodge must be produced by the Master when required by competent authority " ) , and so also at p . 78 , sec . 5 ( " The Master is responsible for the due observance of the laws relating to private lodges , and is bound to produce all books , minutes and accounts , when required by lawful authority , " ) If he is bound to produce them he is entitled to hold
them ; if he holds them he can make himself acquainted with their contents . But if the question means , can a Master who , by intention or even from necessity , is absent from his lodge , require any individual member of his lodge to send him a report of its proceedings . ' I apprehend that the answer must be in the negative . I presume that there is something more in the question
than meets the eye . T here are Masters and Masters . I believe and hope that in nineteen out of every twenty cases , where things go pleasantly , as they generally do in lodge , that when a W . M ., either from " sickness or other pressing emergency , " has been absent from his lodge , any or all of his brethren would be only too . willing to make him acquainted with its proceedings , and to take his advice on
all matters touching its interests . There may be cases where a W . M . has very exaggerated notions as to his powers , and may have so stretched his authority or have exercised it so disagreeably that no one of the members may care to inform him as to the proceedings which have taken place in his absence , and in such case , subject , as I have said , to his light to inspect all books ,
papers , & c , I repeat that , in my opinion , he has no power to compel any one to report to him as to the proceedings of the lodge . Having thus dealt , and I hope satisfactorily , with these two questions , I now revert to the general and somewhat vague question , viz .: — " What is the extent of the control which a W . M . possesses over his lodge , and what
constitutes incapability of discharging the duties of his office , other than by death or removal Whether his absence deprives him of all power and authority over his lodge ? " Before this question can be answered satisfactorily we must know what is meant by the term " control " ( I leave out , or rather I include , " power and authority , " because I
Original Correspondence.
presume that they arc all three intended to mean one and thej same thing ) . I hold that a W . M . has full control over his lodge , provided that the meaning of that word is limited to one of the definitions given to it by Johnson , viz ., " superintendence . " In every body of men there must be some one who is responsible . The Master , in truth , is but a superintending officer , placed at the head of a lodge , not
to carry out any exercise of his own free will , but to see that the laws of the Craft are faithfully observed , and its rites duly administered . The office of Master involves a great deal of responsibility , and gives but little control further than superintendence . He pledges himself " faithfully , zealously , and impartially to perforin the duties of the lodge , " and that he will administer the rites , & c ., & c , and
preserve our ancient landmarks . But does this give him any power , or control , or authority , further than thfit ot superintendence ? I answer , Certainly not . He is there not to do his own will , but to sec that all things are done in order , and that the general laws of the Craft and the particular bye-laws of the lodge arc duly observed . Our laws contemplate the presence of the W . M ., though
they provide for his absence : see p . 7 8 , section 6 , " In the Master ' s absence the immediate Past Master , or , if he be absent , the Senior Past Master present , shall take the chair , " ( Src , iSrc . The Master not being present at a meeting cannot superintend the proceedings of the lodge , and , therefore , he cannot control it ; the authority in such case , or , rather , the responsibility , then rests with the Immediate
P . M ., or Senior P . M ., or whoever by the law is entitled to rule the lodge in the absence of the W . M . A lodge is a pure republic , electing for convenience sake certain officers , clothing them with a certain rank , and investing them with a very slight authority , but retaining its government in its own hands . Thus at p . 80 , section 4 , we read , " The majority of the members present at any
lodge duly summoned have an undoubted right to regulate their own proceedings , provided that they are consistent with the general laws and regulations of the Craft . Here the lodge does the act , the Master only sees that it is properly done . Again , at p . fiij , sec . 24 , " The majority of the members of a lodge , when congregated , have the privilege of giving instructions to their Master , the
Immediate Past Master , and Wardens , before the meeting of Grand Lodge , because such officers are the representatives , and arc supposed to speak their sentiments . " Here the lodge directs what is to be done , and the Master does it . It is true that the Master has some little power granted to him in addition to that possessed by all other members , e . g ., he may , when the votes are equally divided , give a
casting vote , except in the case of election of a candidate for initiation or a brother to join : p . 62 , sec . 2 ., He is constituted the judge of the necessity or otherwise for holding a | lodge of emergency , and may give ov refuse his consent to it , but in his absence the power merges into other hands , viz .: those of the Senior Warden , or in his absence the Junior Warden . See p . 64 , sec . 0 .
The Master , then , is made for the lodge , not the lodge for the Master . As regards the singular question ( or rather deduction from a question supposed to be previously answered ) with which " An Absent W . M . " concludes his letter , I can only remark that as the W . Masters who attended the installation of H . R . H . did so in obedience to the summons issued to them by their superior authority , the Grand Lodge , they could not , and did not , lose any
privileges to which they were otherwise entitled as W . Masters . If their lodges were not meeting at that particular day they wanted 110 control , and therefore the W . Masters lost nothing . If the lodges were meeting , the W . M . ' s , not being present , could not superintend the proceedings , and therefore their authority devolved upon some other officers for that
time . I apologize for ^ the length to which I have unavoidably been led . P . G . W .
FREEMASONRY AND ITS DETRACTORS . To the Editor of the Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — I am sure the brethren who perused the two articles in your columns of Saturday the 21 st inst ., under the heads " Sermons against Freemasonry , " and "The Union Review , " cannot but feel honoured with having read such a noble exposition of the errors perpetrated by a class of
nobodies who presume to denounce a society strong in its humanity , truth , innocence , utility , and above all charity . I do not wish to occupy your space in condemning the conduct of persons who do not actually know anything , practically , of the subject , but merely eke out their illogical abuse in order to gratify a misguided animus . 1 am Sir , your faithful brother , A MASTER MASON . Eccles , August 25 th , 1875 .
SIR CHRISTOPHER WREN . To the Editor of the Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — At page , 382 "A Masonic Student" asserts that I " will not have the pre-1717 Freemasonry at any price , " and adds that I " shut my eyes to the fact of indubitable history . " Newthis way of putting it is highly calculated
, to mislead , and not only so , but I beg to state that both statements arc most decidedly untrue . The fact is that I not only admit the existence of a " pre-1717 Freemasonry , " but I admit the existence of two " pre-1717 Freemasonries , " viz .: the operative Freemasonry of the 14 th , ot
15 th , and 1 fith centuries , and the social Freemasonry the 17 th century . Another Freemasonry , however , sprang up in the 18 th century , and what I " will not have " is that this 18 th century Freemasonry—or " our Freemasonry , ' as it has lately been termed—existed before 1717 . Ashmole and Plot might both be acquainted with a Freemasonry—