Ar00900

THE BARONESS BURDETT-COUTTS has sent to the L ORD MAYOR £ 100 towards the Truro Cathedral Fund . Her ladyship refers to the statement of the PRINCE or WALES , as the Grand Master of Freemasons , that Truro was the first cathedral the

foundation-stone of which had been laid with full Masonic rites , and goes on to say , " Let us hope " that this may be a type that the Churches of

" Christendom may become more united , and " carry more perfectly their Master ' s precepts , " embodied in even what the ignorant know of the " principles of the Craft . "

The Status Of Grand Officers.

THE STATUS OF GRAND OFFICERS .

I do not see that the " minute " of " Revircsco " calls for much reply . It is a very lucid and able resume of the arguments of " Bayard , " but it is nothing more . We have got , it appears to me—as a great diplomatist once said—into " a vicious circle" of argument . We keep

restating statements , and the result is that we have at last to confront" conclusions in which nothing is concluded . " The whole point at issue , — let us argue the matter out as much as we like a " nd quote the Book of Constitutions as often as we choose , —is this" Are Prov . and District Grand Masters Grand

Officers in the sense in which the " words" are used in the Book of Constitutions ? Because if they are , " cadit qucestio ; " if they are not , then undoubtedly "Bayard" and that "Puzzled Student" and "Reviresco " are right . And if they be right let us see what consequences must follow . Not only are Prov . and District Grand Masters unable to answer

to the toast of the " Rest of the Grand Officers , " but they cannot preside in Grand Lodge at all ; but assuming no invested officer of Grand Lodge be present , Grand Lodge , though all thc Prov . Grand Masters are present , must be presided over by the Master of the senior lodge . Believing that this is really " construction " of our

"Constitutions run wild , or that it is a Masonic " gloss , " which is in no wise warranted by the " context , " Iventureoncemore to point out , as it seems to me , how my able and excellent friends are reduced to a " rcductio ad absurdum . " No one disputes that Prov . and District Grand Masters are not invested officers of Grand Lodge . But what we contend is

that , by their office and precedence , they come under that clause which deals with the presidency of Grand Lodge , and are "Grand Officers " in the sense used in the section so often referred to , and as such maintain in Grand Lodge their relative rank and precedence . For otherwise , let us see what ' absurdities and anomalies

must immediately follow . If they are not "covered" by the word "Grand Officers" then either some Present or Past Grand Officer of much inferior rank must preside in Grand Lodge . The Grand Wardens , if present , cannot leave their chairs , and if the " or" is to be construed severely , Present Grand Officers must be exhausted before

Past come in , so that a Grand Officer lower in rank to the Grand Wardens may preside , with a full array of Prov . and District Grand Masters . It appears to me wonderful that my good friends do not see the actual and patent absurdity of their own argument . If this really be the construction of the section , why give the precedence of the Book of Constitutions at all ? How can you give the

precedence laid down there ? If your argument be good , a subordinate officer of Grand Lodge takes precedence of all Prov . and District Grand Masters , This clearly was not intended % the Book of Constitutions . I admit that 1 have taken an '" extreme case , " and one not likely to happen ; but in argument it is only fair and proper to point out the actual absurdity involved in what seems a very clear piece of

reasoning . ^ The Book of Constitutions approves clearly of no distinction , in as far as precedence and the Grand Lodge is concerned , between the "Grand Officers" and the "Officers of Grand Lodge , " except what arises from the "nature of the case , " as it as term ed , and the precise verbiage of the

Book of Constitutions . If , as "Bayard" and others contend , the present position of the Provincial and District Grand Masters is wrong , the common custom erroneous , and their precedence usurped , the sooner we are put right officiall y the better . But to upset a long established custom , and throw our whole Masonic system into confusion and doubt by such

"igemous " verbal criticism " appears to me most undesirahle and uncalled for , and alike an unreasonable and unsound policy . The only effect of such a "change " would be to drive all our Provincial and District ^ rand Masters from Grand Lodge , as they will be placed 'n a most invidious position , derogatory , as I hold it , to neir own dignity , and utterly subversive of the practice and precedents of Grand Lodge since 1 S 13 .

W . M ^ i U R A H'g nncss the Prince of Wales , at Gral \ aZ ° ^„ T ? ° S . Monday last < presented to Lieut . « , ? S \ - . ' . ° f the Royal yacht Osborne , the medal of

life fm „ , I mane . , ' >'» ( or llis gallant conduct in saving-Sept . , " las ?*'"" ' '" orUmoulh Harbour on the night pt ^ t ^^ t & S^ S&& K^ ZV ^ ** H^^ $ ^

Original Correspondence.

Original Correspondence .

[ We do not hold ourselves responsible for , or even approving of , thc opinions expressed by our correspondents , but wc wish in a spirit of fair play to all to permit—within certain necessary limits—free discussion . l

THE STATUS OF GRAND OFFICERS . To the Editor of the " Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — The question of the status of Provincial and District Grand Masters , is narrowed , 1 think , to the consideration of whether they are officers in but not of Grand Lodge ; or , to vary the expression , whether the Grand office with which they are no doubt invested , in their own provinces or

districts , is of a local or of a general character . The usage of Grand Lodge ( it maybe contended ) , whereby Provincial and District Grand Masters , in the absence of the Grand , Pro , and Deputy Grand Masters , preside at Quarterly Communications , has settled that these functionaries are deemed Grand Officers within the meaning of Section 14 , p . 23 , Book of Constitutions . But callinsr a brother a " Grand Officer " will not mate

him one , and , having regard to the legal ma . - s . rn , Expressumfacit cessare taciturn , wc are estopped from inferring a meaning or intention which would conflict with two positive enactments in the Book of Constitutions ( p . 29 , Section 1 , and p . 31 , Section 7 ) . If , indeed , this position be demurredto , then , to quote the words of "Not Infallible " — what next—and will it not become imperative in future Constitution books , to distinguish by an asterisk ( or

otherwise ) the laws which brethren are expected to observe ? The office of Provincial Grand Master was created in 1726 , and during the first half of the last century carried with it neither place or rank in Grand Lodge . There were but four Grand Officers—the G . M ., Deputy , and Wardens —and in their absence , and failing also the attendance of their predecessors in office , Grand Lodge was ruled by the " Master of a lodge who had been the longest a

Freemason . " It may also be stated that for many years after I 7 i 7 , the " oldest Master " presided over Grand Lodge , even in priority of Grand Wardens . The period 1750-1 S 13 affords no precedent that can be usefully cited . The Masons of England were then arrayed in opposite camps , and during the continuance of the great schism , as the usage of one Grand Lodge generally differed from that of the other Grand Lodge , and as the two Grand Lodges ultimately

amalgamated on terms of equality , we are compelled to reject as unconstitutional , any tampering with the laws of Masonry , initiated by either Grand Lodge during their concurrent existence , which was un-confirmed by the first Book of Constitutions published after the fusion of thc two Societies * ( 1 S 15 ) . The "Moderns" did and the "Ancients" f did not confer the rank of "Grahd Officer" upon Provincial

Grand Masters . But the practice of the former was distinguished by 30 many irregularities , as to deprive its annals , during this degenerate period of English Masonry , of any constitutional weight whatsoever . This Grand Lodge —the body , it may be observed , which expelled William Preston—whilst carefully excluding "Past Masters" ( as such ) from membership , in 17 S 3 fixed the price of a life seat and vote in Grand Lodge at £ 25 , far which all

brethren were declared eligible ! Bro . William Birch , Master of the Royal Lodge , afterwards Master of the Lodge of Antiquity ( who is referred to b y Preston as mainly healing the minor schism of which he himself had been a victim ) , recording a memorable protest against this action of Grand Lodge as being " subversive of the principles and constitutions of Masonry , by admitting those to have seats and voice in that assembly where none have been , or

ought to be , but in their REPRESENTATIVE capacity . " The climax of absurdity was achieved by the " Moderns " in their legislation for 1 S 06 , when it was gravely enacted that the Masters and Wardens of Scotch lodges should have seats and votes in the Grand Lodge of England ! ! + The descriptive title of "Grand Officer" was first applied to a Provincial Grand Master in the Constitutions of 1756 ( "Moderns" ) , which stated , moreover , that "he

was to take rank immediately after the Past Deputy Grand Masters . " The next edition of the Constitutions ( 17 C 7 ) shows , however , a marked curtailment of dignity . The P . G . M . is directed " in all publick assemblies to walk immediately after the ' Grand Treasurer . ' " This precedence was confirmed by the Constitutions of 1784 , the last published by the ' Moderns" before the Union , though at p . 360 the following hazy statement appears : " The proper

officers of the Grand Lodge are The G . M ., His Deputy , Two Wardens , Treasurer , Secretary , Chaplain , Sword Bearer . ' All Provincial Grand Masters . " Failing , therefore , the attendance of an actual or Past Grand Warden ( or of those above them in rank ) at Grand Lodge , it seems that thc task of presiding would , in their turns , have devolved upon the Treasurer , Secretary , Chaplain , and Sword Bearer , but whether after the Sword Bearer a Provincial Grand Master was to be called to the chair , or

the _ Master of the Steward's Lodge , it is not easy to decide . As " Bayard " has pointed out , Provincial Grand Masters in the first post-Union Book of Constitutions ( 1815 ) are no longer styled "Grand Officers . " The Constitutions of 1 S 15 represent a careful " weeding out" of conflicting regulations , and the omission of anything from the revised code which previously appeared in the laws and regulations of either " Moderns " or "Ancients" is significant of its intentional rejection .

* By the articles of Union ( 1813 ) , the then subsisting Provincial Grand Masters and Past Masters of both Societies , were conceded respectively the rank in the United Grand Lodge , which the " Moderns" only accorded to the former and the " Ancients " to the latter . But the privileges of both classes of brethren were rigorously curtailed in the future . The seventh article of Union ranks Provincial Grand Masters after Grand Wardens , and states :

" That It shall be the order of precedence in all time to come !" t The adjectives "Modern "and "Ancient" were applied , by the seceders of 1739-50 to the practices of the rival Grand bodies . The ( so-called ) "Modern" and '; Ancient" Grand Lodges were established in 1717 and 17 S 0 respectively . X See last note . —If other examples were wanting ) the legislation cited in the text would of itself sufficiently attestlthe propriety of the nickname which was selected by the " Ancients " for their elder brethren .

Original Correspondence.

Your correspondent" W . " says , " Otherwise , to push the argument to an absurdity , a Grand Pursuivant might take precedence of a Provincial or District Grand Master . " But , with all respect to your correspondent , I fail to see anything absurd in the idea of a brother who is a Grand Officer , taking Masonic precedence of a brotheriwho is not a Grand Officer , unless , indeed , we are prepared to adopt the view propounded by Father Foy and Louis Blanc ,

" that Freemasonry is but a comedy of equality . " No one , as " Reviresco " has well stated , objects to Provincial Grand Masters ruling over Grand Lodge , and if they are not legally empowered to do so ( which is my contention ) , by all means let us amend the Constitutions , and grant them rank as well as place in the Parliament of the Craft . The presidency of District Grand Masters is ; however ,

quite another thing . These brethren are " patented" to preside over Grand Lodges " beyond ^ seas , " and there is nothing either in the terms of their appointment , or in the nature of their duties , to justify the guidance of the deliberations of the United Grand Lodge of England , being added to the sufficiently heavy labours which devolve upon them in their own proper capacities . Rank as well as place in the " great assembly" of the

English Craft can hardly , indeed , in fairness be assigned to twenty-nine District Grand Masters , as the representatives of 450 foreign lodges , without at the same time conceding a proportionate representation to the 300 lodges of the metropolis , by the creation of at least twenty Provincial Grand Masters from amongst the Masters and Past Masters of the London district . Yours fraternally , LEX SCRIPTA .

ANCIENT AND PRIMITIVE RITE . We publish the following correspondence bv request : — To the Editor of the "Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — May I ask you to find space for the enclosed correspondence , which has a direct bearing on the dictum expressed in your leader of the 16 th ult ., and I trust will

induce you to look a little closer into the matter . We have no fear of scrutiny , and on the other hand no desire to achieve notoriety by newspaper warfare , but although 1 have written to the G . S . G . of the Supreme Council for an explanation , I have not , it is almost needless to say , been honoured with a reply , Yours truly and fraternally , JAMES HILL , 33 .

Office of the Grand Expert General of the Ancient and Primitive Rite for America , 424 , Broadway N . Y ., gth August , 1880 . Dear Sir and Brother , — Your communication of 24 th July , enclosing a notice issued b y the Golden Square Body of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite has been duly received , ' and carefully noted .

I am greatly surprised that any body of intelligent Freemasons should display so little knowledge of the true principles of Freemasonry as they exhibit in the circular referred to . One would naturally suppose that a body which declares itself tone the only legitimate Supreme Council of the Thirty-third Degree would not be guilty of the gross ignorance of its own history shewn therein .

As to their legitimacy I would respectfully refer them to their own charter , which they obtained from a Supreme Council composed of representatives of bodies which had deserted the Cerneau Council , A . and A . Rite ( the only legitimate Supreme body of the A . and A . Rite in America ) , self constituting and styling themselves the northern jurisdiction . A body of such doubtful antecedents is clearly

not a Supreme Council , which can legall y lay any claim to jurisdiction over the A . and A . Scottish Rile , either in England or elsewhere . The Ancient and Primitive Rite on the other hand is not of doubtful origin , but possesses a legitimate character that will bear the most rigid scrutiny . That the Sovereign Sanctuary of the Ancient and Primitive Rite for Great

Britain and Ireland is unauthorised and unrecognised by any other Supreme Grand Council is a wilful misstatement , and is quite on a par with previous aspersions made by their officers and presumably under their authority . The ritual of the Ancient and Primitive Rite is far more complete and perfect than that of the Scottish Rite , and to this fact , and the reduction of our Degrees from 9 6 to 33 ,

may be attributed the jealousy , opposition , and enmity which has been exhibited by the latter body both in this country and in Great Britain . As to that part of the " Edict " which notifies members of their bodies not to hold Masonic intercourse with us we are satisfied to be placed in the same category with Worthy York Rite , Masons who are also excluded from their

chapters . Yet we cannot but deplore that the legitimate bodies oi the Ancient and Accepted Rite by their close communion principles ( which are clearly un-Masonic ) have done more harm to the brotherhood than all the persecutions invented by superstition and tyranny for the annihilation of our ancient fraternity . Fraternally , W . YOUNGBLOOD , 33 A . and P . Rite , 33 A . and A . Rite , and

Grand Presentation General . [ We print this letter on the principle of " appeal foi a fair hearing , " but we cannot , though "Craft Masons , " approve of its tone or temper , and we have excised some very un-Masonic passages . We should have taken out more , but thought it better to let the writer " speak for himself . " We regret that so much " animus" should exist . —ED . F . M . J

[ Copy . ] 19 th July , 18 S 0 . Dear Sir and Brother , — A circular letter , purporting to be signed by Hugh D . Sanderman , 33 , G . Sect . ; Gen ., and addressed to the M . W . S ., under date 7 th July , 1880 , and with the address 33 Golden-square , W ., has been handed to me by

, a member of our chapter , Rose of Sharon , No . 6 " , Ancient and Primitive Rite , in the belief that it was sent to him with a view to injure the Ancient and Primitive Rite and myself ( to whom special allusion is made ) in the esteem of the members of the said chapter .

As I cannot think this could be intended , and imagine there must be some mistake , either in selecting the particular member to whom it was sent , as he is in no way connected witb the Ancient and Accepted Rite , or that some mischievous jo ^ rson has taken the same liberties with your name as the copyist has evidently done with the spelling , ... :.. ; J"