Skip to main content
Museum of Freemasonry

Masonic Periodicals Online

  • Explore
  • Advanced Search
  • Home
  • Explore
  • The Freemason
  • May 20, 1871
  • Page 10
Current:

The Freemason, May 20, 1871: Page 10

  • Back to The Freemason, May 20, 1871
  • Print image
  • Articles/Ads
    Article Original Correspondence. Page 1 of 1
    Article Original Correspondence. Page 1 of 1
    Article Original Correspondence. Page 1 of 1
    Article THE LITTLE TESTIMONIAL. Page 1 of 1
    Article THE "LITTLE" TESTIMONIAL FUND. Page 1 of 1
Page 10

Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.

Original Correspondence.

Original Correspondence .

*—The Editor is not responsible for the opinions expressed by Correspondents .

THE MARK DEGREE AND THE MARK CHAIR .

( To the Editor of The Freemason . ) SIR AND BROTHER , —In the letter of a D . Prov . G . M . M ., at page 282 , there are two statements which it would be highly interesting to have proved .

The first is , that the secrets of the Master's chair have a claim to antiquity . The second is , that the Mark degree is not independent , but "as dependent on the second degree as the Royal Arch is on the third . "

As regards the first point , I find no mention in any of the old records of 1717 and the following years of a AV . M . being installed in the absence ofhis lodge . On the contrary , every account of an installation leads the reader to suppose that the W . M . was installed "with certain significant ceremonies "

in ihe presence of his lodge . If I am correct , then , the chair secrets are , as now given , an innovation , and a new degree , which may be very proper to be given , but have no necessary connection with the installation of a W . M . As regards the second point , if the Mark is a part

of the Fellow-Craft ' s degree , how comes it that it is altogether unknown in England , Sweden , Germany and France , and that where known and recognised , as in America , Scotland and Ireland , it is part not of the Fellow Craft , but of the Royal Arch system ? Wherever the Mark is worked independently , as

in England ( and for its own sake I am most thankful that it is independent of Great Queen-street ) , it seems to me that the good of Mark lodges ought alone to be considered in deciding the question of the qualifications for the Master's chair ; and as

regards this , the well-considered and yet incisive reforms that have hitherto been carried out , give us every reason to place the most implicit reliance in the wisdom of the G . M . M . and the G . M . L . Yours fraternally , A MARK P . M .

( To the Editor of The Freemason . ) DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —I have read with attention the correspondence in your pages on this subject , and have had my first impressions strengthened by the remarks of your several correspondents . Agreeing with those who feel regret that they

cannot adopt the opinions of Bro . Hughan ( than whom there are few better able to decide on questions of Masonic propriety ) , I have from thc first considered it singular that that worthy brother cannot observe the absolute misplacement of the chair of K . S . before that of A m .

It is quite true that "a regulation has been made in the Craft" that thc degree of M . M . shall precede that of Mark Master , but that appears to be the result of a concession made by one Order of Masonry towards the other for the sake of preserving that unity and good-fellowship which both profess

and desire to practise . Beyond the reservation thereby made , there is nothing that in the present order of things affects the independent working of the respective degrees . If the Mark degree were , as was no doubt originally intended , the intermediate stage between the

F . C . and the M . M . degrees , it might be reasonably expected that the chair of K . S . should be the onl y position of absolute power . Even then there would be no reason why the superior ofiiccr of thc Mark degree should not occupy the chair of a representative subordinate to that of K . S . But it has been

decided , whether wisely or not is for more experirienced Masons than myself to determine , that the Craft and Mark degrees shall be kept separate and distinct . And , therefore , beyond thc obligation to observe that regulation which 1 have before mentioned , there can be but one argument in favour of

the objection to instal a Mark Mason not already an Installed Craft Master into the Mark chair . Even this one argument— which I take to be the possibility of giving a brother an insight into the secrets ofthe chair of K . S . before he can be legally entitled to them — can be soon disposed of , for

there is nothing in the ceremony of installation observed in the one degree ( beyond the O . B ., and that is a most important exception ) , which is not in the other shared in by the brethren generally , and no Installed Master of a Mark Lodge , not already installed in the Craft , is nearer the

possession of the secrets of the chair of K . S . than any other Master Mason . The many reasons why a zealous Mark Master should not be hindered in his progress and be prevented from ruling a Mark lodge must be obvious

to all members of the Order , and scarce require discussion . In my opinion , it only remains to obtain thc admission that the above presumed objection is founded on error lo exhaust the subject . There seems to be an absurdity in making the chair of K . S . precede that of the Mark degree , and

Original Correspondence.

so reversing what should be the proper order of merit . For if the Mark had been , as in years gone by it could have been , adopted in the Craft between the F . C . and M . M . degrees , surely every portion of its working and its several offices must have been subordinated to what would then have been the

higher degree . But it is now an independent Order , and as such should not be trammelled by any requirement of another body , beyond what has already been agreed to . With every respect for blue Masonry , towards which I remain as loyal and zealous as I ever have been , I think the degree with which it would

not concern itself has now assumed such proportions as justify its assumption of a right to act without restraint from that source . The Mark Lodge " Macdonald , No . 104 , " lias elected its Senior Warden ( not yet or soon likely to be a Master of a Craft Lodge ) as their next AA ' . M .

and he will , under the authority of the M . W . Grand Mark Master , be installed into that office on the 10 th proximo . To have refused the worthy brother his preferment because his good qualities had not been properly recognised elsewhere , would have been an act of injustice to him and discouragement

to other zealous Mark Master Masons , of such a nature as I trust will never be sanctioned in the Mark Degree . Yours fraternally , JAMES STEVENS , P . M . & P . Z ., AV . M . Macdonald Mark 104 , and G . J . O . Clapham , May 15 , 1871 .

( To the Editor of Thc Freemason . ) DEAR SIR AND BROTHER . — " A D . P . G . M . M . " finds fault with my assertion that the Mark is an independent degree . By " independent" I meant that it was independent in its government , i . e ., that the body claiming exclusive authority over the

degree in this country is totally distinct from and independent of the Craft Grand Lodge ; it is dependent on the 2 ° and also on the 3 ° to this extent , that none but Master Masons can receive the Mark . This is however the case with all Masonic and chivalric degrees , e . g ., the Red Cross ; yet I am

not aware that the M . P . S . of a conclave must necessarily be a P . M . It appears to me that were the present restriction carried out to its legitimate issue , the G . M . ofthe Mark ought previously to have presided over the whole Craft ! With the Royal Arch the case is entirely different ; the two systems are

closely connected in their working , for example , ihe G . Sec . and G . Reg ., if R . A . Masons , arc ex officio entitled to the same offices in the Grand Chapter , and it is notorious that thc subordinate and dependent position occupied by the Supreme Grand Chapter is extremely distasteful to the

upholders of the Order . As to the threat of secession in the event of the alteration being carried out , I cannot believe that any honourable body of men would hold so lightly a solemn O . B ., voluntarily entered into , as to break it merely because some measure was passed of which they individually might not approve .

In conclusion , 1 must still say that as a friend to the Mark degree , I believe I am consulting its best interests in wishing to see the alteration carried out ; that there is no inseparable objection to it is evident from the very fact that thc matter has been under the consideration ofthe General Board . Apologising for again troubling you , Believe me , fraternally yours , A CRAFT P . M .

THE 1717 THF . ORA ' . ( To the Editor of The Freemason . ) DEAR SIR AND BROTHER— I have no intention to prolong this discussion . I only desire to remark that Bro . Buchan forgets that thc Carpenters and the Freemasons are jointly referred to in very many

ancient fabric rolls and other historic documents , and that the Magister Carpcntarius is mentioned frequently as a person of importance . 1 have no doubt that these guilds were allied , ancl hence their joint mention in the Statute of Laborers , in which your readers will have observed that no other

association is specified by name , although thc statute applied to thc whole of these trading combinations . It must therefore be apparent to any unprejudiced reader that the carpenters and masons had within their organisation more important elements than the other trade-fellowships . I may remind Bro . Buchan

that it was to the Tailors he compared thc Masons ; not to the Carpenters . If by " playing into his hands" Bro . Buchan means thc affording him information , I am very glad to contribute such as my humble stock will supply ; but I think if Bro . Buchan was so well

acquainted with the early statutes on the subject of Masons , it was unnecessary for him to specially challenge me to produce one referring to that craft alone before 1717 , and still more unnecessary for him to imply that I had suppressed Chapter ii . That the Masonic craft has existed , in some form , for centuries at least , wc all well know from

Original Correspondence.

innumerable MS . as well as printed sources ; consequently , when Bro . Buchan thinks it right to assert that its present constitution was invented in 1717 , it is not asking him to prove a negative when I suggest that he shall show some evidence for his

statement . I may give an example of this by myself asserting that it was founded in 1450 : would Bro . Buchan refrain from asking me to prove this because it would in his view be proof of a negative ? Yours fraternally , LUPUS .

The Little Testimonial.

THE LITTLE TESTIMONIAL .

We did not intend to have alluded to the services of our Bro . Robert Wentworth Little , towards the English Craft , but since The Freemasons' Magazine and Masonic Mirror ( London ) has been so contemptible as to allow disparaging remarks relative to him to appear in its columns under certain noms

de plume , because he advocates certain Masonic orders , of which we dare to say , the learned (?) editor of The Freemasons' Magazine is entirely ignorant , then we deem it our duty to say a word or two regarding the testimonial , with which certain members of the Craft propose to present him .

Bro . Little we look upon as one of the advanced members of the English Fraternity . He may only be assistant to the Grand Secretary , but , certainly , for energy he is excelled by few . We do not know him either personally or by correspondence , but we are aware that he is a good ritualist ( a somewhat

rare thing in some parts of England ) an earnest worker , and a true lover of the Masonic Fraternity . Such being the case , we are pleased to note that his services are to be rewarded by a testimonial worthy of the Brotherhood whom he has so long and so faithfully served .

The cry against him is that the said testimonial is for his services in the Order of the Red Cross of Rome and Constantine . Such , we believe , is not altogether the case . Bro . Little has devoted his time also to the Craft and Capitular Masonry , and although he has been most energetic in his efforts

to spread that branch of which he is Grand Recorder , he has not , to our knowledge , been remiss in his duties to those other bodies to which he also owes allegiance . We think , moreover , that through him to a great extent will be accomplished the bringing together , under thc one sovereignty , the various

Masonic branches not now recognised by the Grand Lodge of England . ' For example there are now in England a Supreme Grand Council of the A . and A . Rite 33 , a Grand Mark Lodge , a Grand Ark Lodge , a Grand Commandery of Knights Templar , a General Grand •Conclave of the Red Cross of

Rome and Constantine , which last-named body has also authority over the Rite of Misraim . The Grand Mark Lodge and Grand Ark are also uniting , and wc hope that all thc other bodies will unite in forming a Grand Council of Rites , so as to systematise this Babel of Masonic languages . Bro . Little has

worked to accomplish this , and we join with him in the movement , heart and hand . AVe want a system . Let the Freemasons of England be liberal in their subscriptions towards a testimonial for one , who has devoted his time , his talents , and his

energies to the welfare of the English Craft , its Orders and its benevolent institutions . Such a brother wc believe our frater to be , and the Gavel sends him its best and most fraternal good wishes . — The Gavel , Orillia , Ont ., Canada , May , 1871 .

The "Little" Testimonial Fund.

THE "LITTLE" TESTIMONIAL FUND .

ADDITIONAL SUBSCRIPTIONS . £ s . d . The Right Hon . the Earl Bective ... 10 o o Sir 1 ' . M . AVilliams , Bart ., M . P . ... S S ° The Rose of Denmark Lodge , No . 975 5 5 ° St . Mark ' s Lodge of Mark Masters , No . I 5 5 ° T . AA . Barrett ( additional ) 440

M . J . Jennings 220 J . Freeman , P . M . iS 220 The Right lion , the Earl of Jersey ... 200 Lodgeof Asaph , No . 1319 220 Yillier ' s Lodge , No . 1194 220 C . Rogers Harrison I I o Major-General Munbee I I o

Joseph Armstrong 1 I o G . A . Ibbetson I I o V . G . Bailey I I O Major Scndey 110 John Kirk I I o

T . McGovern P . M . ( Dublin ) IIO Thc Stockwell Lodge , No . 1339 ... I I o James Abbott 100 AV . Biggs ( Reading ) o 10 6 Dr . AV . C . Lucey o 10 6 Dr . J . S . Bulmer o 10 o

SMALL-POX , FEVERS , AND SKIN DISEASES . — The predisposition to is prevented by Lamplough ' s Pyretic Saline . A'italis ' mg and invigorating , its effects are remarkable in their cure and prevention . Take it as directed . Sold by chemists and the maker , H . Lamplough , 113 , Holhorn-hill . —[ Advt . ]

“The Freemason: 1871-05-20, Page 10” Masonic Periodicals Online, Library and Museum of Freemasonry, 16 July 2025, django:8000/periodicals/fvl/issues/fvl_20051871/page/10/.
  • List
  • Grid
Title Category Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS. Article 1
FREEMASONRY in IRELAND. Article 1
THE HIGH GRADES IN IRELAND. Article 2
ANTICIPATED VISIT of AMERICAN KNIGHTS TEMPLAR. Article 2
THE FAIR SEX AND ADOPTIVE MASONRY. Article 2
THE THIRD POINT. Article 3
THE PAST MASTER'S JEWEL. Article 3
Reports of Masonic Meetings. Article 4
ROYAL ARCH. Article 5
MARK MASONRY. Article 5
ORDERS OF CHIVALRY. Article 5
Masonic Miscellanea. Article 5
Untitled Article 6
Untitled Article 6
Births, Marriages, and Deaths. Article 6
Untitled Article 6
Untitled Article 6
Untitled Article 6
ROYAL ARCH MASONRY. Article 6
Obituary. Article 6
Multum in Parbo, or Masonic Notes and Queries. Article 7
THE GRAND LODGE OF QUEBEC. Article 7
Thc RECTANGULAR REVIEW versus FREEMASONRY. Article 7
A CANADIAN MASONIC VILLAGE. Article 8
"That GREAT, A WFUL, TREMENDOUS and INCOMPREHENSIBLE NAME.'' Article 8
GRAND CONCLAVE OF KNIGHTS TEMPLAR. Article 9
Original Correspondence. Article 10
THE LITTLE TESTIMONIAL. Article 10
THE "LITTLE" TESTIMONIAL FUND. Article 10
SCOTLAND. Article 11
CENTENARY CELEBRATION OF LODGE ST. ANDREW'S, KILMARNOCK No. 126. Article 11
LAYING THE FOUNDATION STONE OF HILLHEAD BURGH HALL. Article 11
METROPOLITAN MASONIC MEETINGS Article 12
Untitled Ad 12
Untitled Ad 12
Untitled Ad 12
Page 1

Page 1

4 Articles
Page 2

Page 2

4 Articles
Page 3

Page 3

4 Articles
Page 4

Page 4

3 Articles
Page 5

Page 5

7 Articles
Page 6

Page 6

10 Articles
Page 7

Page 7

5 Articles
Page 8

Page 8

4 Articles
Page 9

Page 9

4 Articles
Page 10

Page 10

5 Articles
Page 11

Page 11

5 Articles
Page 12

Page 12

7 Articles
Page 10

Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.

Original Correspondence.

Original Correspondence .

*—The Editor is not responsible for the opinions expressed by Correspondents .

THE MARK DEGREE AND THE MARK CHAIR .

( To the Editor of The Freemason . ) SIR AND BROTHER , —In the letter of a D . Prov . G . M . M ., at page 282 , there are two statements which it would be highly interesting to have proved .

The first is , that the secrets of the Master's chair have a claim to antiquity . The second is , that the Mark degree is not independent , but "as dependent on the second degree as the Royal Arch is on the third . "

As regards the first point , I find no mention in any of the old records of 1717 and the following years of a AV . M . being installed in the absence ofhis lodge . On the contrary , every account of an installation leads the reader to suppose that the W . M . was installed "with certain significant ceremonies "

in ihe presence of his lodge . If I am correct , then , the chair secrets are , as now given , an innovation , and a new degree , which may be very proper to be given , but have no necessary connection with the installation of a W . M . As regards the second point , if the Mark is a part

of the Fellow-Craft ' s degree , how comes it that it is altogether unknown in England , Sweden , Germany and France , and that where known and recognised , as in America , Scotland and Ireland , it is part not of the Fellow Craft , but of the Royal Arch system ? Wherever the Mark is worked independently , as

in England ( and for its own sake I am most thankful that it is independent of Great Queen-street ) , it seems to me that the good of Mark lodges ought alone to be considered in deciding the question of the qualifications for the Master's chair ; and as

regards this , the well-considered and yet incisive reforms that have hitherto been carried out , give us every reason to place the most implicit reliance in the wisdom of the G . M . M . and the G . M . L . Yours fraternally , A MARK P . M .

( To the Editor of The Freemason . ) DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —I have read with attention the correspondence in your pages on this subject , and have had my first impressions strengthened by the remarks of your several correspondents . Agreeing with those who feel regret that they

cannot adopt the opinions of Bro . Hughan ( than whom there are few better able to decide on questions of Masonic propriety ) , I have from thc first considered it singular that that worthy brother cannot observe the absolute misplacement of the chair of K . S . before that of A m .

It is quite true that "a regulation has been made in the Craft" that thc degree of M . M . shall precede that of Mark Master , but that appears to be the result of a concession made by one Order of Masonry towards the other for the sake of preserving that unity and good-fellowship which both profess

and desire to practise . Beyond the reservation thereby made , there is nothing that in the present order of things affects the independent working of the respective degrees . If the Mark degree were , as was no doubt originally intended , the intermediate stage between the

F . C . and the M . M . degrees , it might be reasonably expected that the chair of K . S . should be the onl y position of absolute power . Even then there would be no reason why the superior ofiiccr of thc Mark degree should not occupy the chair of a representative subordinate to that of K . S . But it has been

decided , whether wisely or not is for more experirienced Masons than myself to determine , that the Craft and Mark degrees shall be kept separate and distinct . And , therefore , beyond thc obligation to observe that regulation which 1 have before mentioned , there can be but one argument in favour of

the objection to instal a Mark Mason not already an Installed Craft Master into the Mark chair . Even this one argument— which I take to be the possibility of giving a brother an insight into the secrets ofthe chair of K . S . before he can be legally entitled to them — can be soon disposed of , for

there is nothing in the ceremony of installation observed in the one degree ( beyond the O . B ., and that is a most important exception ) , which is not in the other shared in by the brethren generally , and no Installed Master of a Mark Lodge , not already installed in the Craft , is nearer the

possession of the secrets of the chair of K . S . than any other Master Mason . The many reasons why a zealous Mark Master should not be hindered in his progress and be prevented from ruling a Mark lodge must be obvious

to all members of the Order , and scarce require discussion . In my opinion , it only remains to obtain thc admission that the above presumed objection is founded on error lo exhaust the subject . There seems to be an absurdity in making the chair of K . S . precede that of the Mark degree , and

Original Correspondence.

so reversing what should be the proper order of merit . For if the Mark had been , as in years gone by it could have been , adopted in the Craft between the F . C . and M . M . degrees , surely every portion of its working and its several offices must have been subordinated to what would then have been the

higher degree . But it is now an independent Order , and as such should not be trammelled by any requirement of another body , beyond what has already been agreed to . With every respect for blue Masonry , towards which I remain as loyal and zealous as I ever have been , I think the degree with which it would

not concern itself has now assumed such proportions as justify its assumption of a right to act without restraint from that source . The Mark Lodge " Macdonald , No . 104 , " lias elected its Senior Warden ( not yet or soon likely to be a Master of a Craft Lodge ) as their next AA ' . M .

and he will , under the authority of the M . W . Grand Mark Master , be installed into that office on the 10 th proximo . To have refused the worthy brother his preferment because his good qualities had not been properly recognised elsewhere , would have been an act of injustice to him and discouragement

to other zealous Mark Master Masons , of such a nature as I trust will never be sanctioned in the Mark Degree . Yours fraternally , JAMES STEVENS , P . M . & P . Z ., AV . M . Macdonald Mark 104 , and G . J . O . Clapham , May 15 , 1871 .

( To the Editor of Thc Freemason . ) DEAR SIR AND BROTHER . — " A D . P . G . M . M . " finds fault with my assertion that the Mark is an independent degree . By " independent" I meant that it was independent in its government , i . e ., that the body claiming exclusive authority over the

degree in this country is totally distinct from and independent of the Craft Grand Lodge ; it is dependent on the 2 ° and also on the 3 ° to this extent , that none but Master Masons can receive the Mark . This is however the case with all Masonic and chivalric degrees , e . g ., the Red Cross ; yet I am

not aware that the M . P . S . of a conclave must necessarily be a P . M . It appears to me that were the present restriction carried out to its legitimate issue , the G . M . ofthe Mark ought previously to have presided over the whole Craft ! With the Royal Arch the case is entirely different ; the two systems are

closely connected in their working , for example , ihe G . Sec . and G . Reg ., if R . A . Masons , arc ex officio entitled to the same offices in the Grand Chapter , and it is notorious that thc subordinate and dependent position occupied by the Supreme Grand Chapter is extremely distasteful to the

upholders of the Order . As to the threat of secession in the event of the alteration being carried out , I cannot believe that any honourable body of men would hold so lightly a solemn O . B ., voluntarily entered into , as to break it merely because some measure was passed of which they individually might not approve .

In conclusion , 1 must still say that as a friend to the Mark degree , I believe I am consulting its best interests in wishing to see the alteration carried out ; that there is no inseparable objection to it is evident from the very fact that thc matter has been under the consideration ofthe General Board . Apologising for again troubling you , Believe me , fraternally yours , A CRAFT P . M .

THE 1717 THF . ORA ' . ( To the Editor of The Freemason . ) DEAR SIR AND BROTHER— I have no intention to prolong this discussion . I only desire to remark that Bro . Buchan forgets that thc Carpenters and the Freemasons are jointly referred to in very many

ancient fabric rolls and other historic documents , and that the Magister Carpcntarius is mentioned frequently as a person of importance . 1 have no doubt that these guilds were allied , ancl hence their joint mention in the Statute of Laborers , in which your readers will have observed that no other

association is specified by name , although thc statute applied to thc whole of these trading combinations . It must therefore be apparent to any unprejudiced reader that the carpenters and masons had within their organisation more important elements than the other trade-fellowships . I may remind Bro . Buchan

that it was to the Tailors he compared thc Masons ; not to the Carpenters . If by " playing into his hands" Bro . Buchan means thc affording him information , I am very glad to contribute such as my humble stock will supply ; but I think if Bro . Buchan was so well

acquainted with the early statutes on the subject of Masons , it was unnecessary for him to specially challenge me to produce one referring to that craft alone before 1717 , and still more unnecessary for him to imply that I had suppressed Chapter ii . That the Masonic craft has existed , in some form , for centuries at least , wc all well know from

Original Correspondence.

innumerable MS . as well as printed sources ; consequently , when Bro . Buchan thinks it right to assert that its present constitution was invented in 1717 , it is not asking him to prove a negative when I suggest that he shall show some evidence for his

statement . I may give an example of this by myself asserting that it was founded in 1450 : would Bro . Buchan refrain from asking me to prove this because it would in his view be proof of a negative ? Yours fraternally , LUPUS .

The Little Testimonial.

THE LITTLE TESTIMONIAL .

We did not intend to have alluded to the services of our Bro . Robert Wentworth Little , towards the English Craft , but since The Freemasons' Magazine and Masonic Mirror ( London ) has been so contemptible as to allow disparaging remarks relative to him to appear in its columns under certain noms

de plume , because he advocates certain Masonic orders , of which we dare to say , the learned (?) editor of The Freemasons' Magazine is entirely ignorant , then we deem it our duty to say a word or two regarding the testimonial , with which certain members of the Craft propose to present him .

Bro . Little we look upon as one of the advanced members of the English Fraternity . He may only be assistant to the Grand Secretary , but , certainly , for energy he is excelled by few . We do not know him either personally or by correspondence , but we are aware that he is a good ritualist ( a somewhat

rare thing in some parts of England ) an earnest worker , and a true lover of the Masonic Fraternity . Such being the case , we are pleased to note that his services are to be rewarded by a testimonial worthy of the Brotherhood whom he has so long and so faithfully served .

The cry against him is that the said testimonial is for his services in the Order of the Red Cross of Rome and Constantine . Such , we believe , is not altogether the case . Bro . Little has devoted his time also to the Craft and Capitular Masonry , and although he has been most energetic in his efforts

to spread that branch of which he is Grand Recorder , he has not , to our knowledge , been remiss in his duties to those other bodies to which he also owes allegiance . We think , moreover , that through him to a great extent will be accomplished the bringing together , under thc one sovereignty , the various

Masonic branches not now recognised by the Grand Lodge of England . ' For example there are now in England a Supreme Grand Council of the A . and A . Rite 33 , a Grand Mark Lodge , a Grand Ark Lodge , a Grand Commandery of Knights Templar , a General Grand •Conclave of the Red Cross of

Rome and Constantine , which last-named body has also authority over the Rite of Misraim . The Grand Mark Lodge and Grand Ark are also uniting , and wc hope that all thc other bodies will unite in forming a Grand Council of Rites , so as to systematise this Babel of Masonic languages . Bro . Little has

worked to accomplish this , and we join with him in the movement , heart and hand . AVe want a system . Let the Freemasons of England be liberal in their subscriptions towards a testimonial for one , who has devoted his time , his talents , and his

energies to the welfare of the English Craft , its Orders and its benevolent institutions . Such a brother wc believe our frater to be , and the Gavel sends him its best and most fraternal good wishes . — The Gavel , Orillia , Ont ., Canada , May , 1871 .

The "Little" Testimonial Fund.

THE "LITTLE" TESTIMONIAL FUND .

ADDITIONAL SUBSCRIPTIONS . £ s . d . The Right Hon . the Earl Bective ... 10 o o Sir 1 ' . M . AVilliams , Bart ., M . P . ... S S ° The Rose of Denmark Lodge , No . 975 5 5 ° St . Mark ' s Lodge of Mark Masters , No . I 5 5 ° T . AA . Barrett ( additional ) 440

M . J . Jennings 220 J . Freeman , P . M . iS 220 The Right lion , the Earl of Jersey ... 200 Lodgeof Asaph , No . 1319 220 Yillier ' s Lodge , No . 1194 220 C . Rogers Harrison I I o Major-General Munbee I I o

Joseph Armstrong 1 I o G . A . Ibbetson I I o V . G . Bailey I I O Major Scndey 110 John Kirk I I o

T . McGovern P . M . ( Dublin ) IIO Thc Stockwell Lodge , No . 1339 ... I I o James Abbott 100 AV . Biggs ( Reading ) o 10 6 Dr . AV . C . Lucey o 10 6 Dr . J . S . Bulmer o 10 o

SMALL-POX , FEVERS , AND SKIN DISEASES . — The predisposition to is prevented by Lamplough ' s Pyretic Saline . A'italis ' mg and invigorating , its effects are remarkable in their cure and prevention . Take it as directed . Sold by chemists and the maker , H . Lamplough , 113 , Holhorn-hill . —[ Advt . ]

  • Prev page
  • 1
  • 9
  • You're on page10
  • 11
  • 12
  • Next page
  • Accredited Museum Designated Outstanding Collection
  • LIBRARY AND MUSEUM CHARITABLE TRUST OF THE UNITED GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND REGISTERED CHARITY NUMBER 1058497 / ALL RIGHTS RESERVED © 2025

  • Accessibility statement

  • Designed, developed, and maintained by King's Digital Lab

We use cookies to track usage and preferences.

Privacy & cookie policy