-
Articles/Ads
Article Untitled ← Page 2 of 2 Article ANSWERS TO QUERIES. Page 1 of 1 Article Original Correspondece. Page 1 of 2 Article Original Correspondece. Page 1 of 2 Article Original Correspondece. Page 1 of 2 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Ar00900
especially of its respected President to call the attention of the brethren , " in season and out of season , " to the unchanging verity of that good old axiom , " be just before you arc generous . " * Two distinguished members of general society
have passed away , full of years and honours , during the last week , who deserve a " passing note" in the friendl y pages of the Freemason . The one is the lamented Lord Chief Justice , SIR
A . COCKBURN , who will long be missed in the Court he so ably presided over and in the society he adorned so much ; the other is Field Marshal SIR CHARLES Y ORKE , a good old soldier , and a most kindly man .
WE publish Bro . YARKER ' letter elsewhere in re the Ancient and Primitive Rite , but we must venture to impress upon him the desirability of a little
more moderation in the language he uses and the epithets he applies . We shall allude to the subject again in our next . We regret to see , as " Craftsmen , " the personality evoked b y such discussions .
Answers To Queries.
ANSWERS TO QUERIES .
i . Provincial Grand Masters in the colonies and foreign parts were first designated District Grand Masters by resolution of Grand Lodge on the 6 th December , 1 S 65 . 2 . Bro . Robert Thomas Crucefix was suspended for six months by the Board of General Purposes on the 10 th of March , 1 S 40 , and the suspension was confirmed by Grand Lodge on the 3 rd of June , 1 S 40 . T . F .
Original Correspondece.
Original Correspondece .
[ We do not holtlioursclvcs responsible for , or even approving of , the opinions expressed by our correspondents , but we wish in a spirit of fair play to all to permit—within certain necessary limits—free discussion . !
GRAND OFFICERS . To the Editor 0 / the " Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — I have been very much interested in the able discussion which has been going on for some weeks past in your columns . 1 cannot bring myself to'look upon either Provincial or District Grand Masters as officers of Grand
Lodge , but rather members of that body with a defined status . In support of this view , I beg to quote Rule 6 , p . 19 , of the Book of Constitutions , " No brother shall hold more than one ofiice . in the Grand Lodge at one and the same time . " If , therefore , Provincial Grand Masters are officers either of or
in Grand Lodge , I should look upon this regulation as being constantly violated , as for many years the Deputy Grand Master has invariably been a Provincial Grand Master , and it will be in your recollection that a Royal Warden was installed also to that office . I am , dear Sir and Brother , yours fraternally , P . G .
To the Editor of the "Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — I am quite pleased to see that " Bayard" has returned to the charge so full of life and chaff , though I cannot congratulate him cither on his own reading of my last letter , or somebody else's suggestions . I by no means give up the legal interpretation ofthe Book of Constitutions .
to which I adhere , hut , in the course of the argument , l felt that , as "Lex Scripta" pointed out fairl y , there was an actual distinction between Provincial and District Grand Masters ; and , as the main objection was to the latter , not to the former , I saw no objection in saying that we might fairl y distinguish between them for various reasons , which it is needless to detail . But 1 foresaw the difficulties , as I
said , and quite go with " Past District Grand Master " in the last Freemason thereanent . I . do not think , for one , that " Bayard , " or " Lex scripta , " or " Rcviresco" have proved that Provincial and District Grand Masters are not Grand Officers . All they have proved is , which nobody contested really , that they are not "invested officers , " and which , also , nobody said
they were . ., ^ ut tney have not proved , as they cannot prove , that 'hey do not come under the term " Grand Officers " in the clause of the Book of Constitutions relative to presidency m Grand Lodge . With respect to " Grand Master ' s Office * F > J do not see that in the present controversy the order of the Duke of Sussex affects our arguments , though ! . m'ght tend to prove that thev were covered hv H IP wnrA
Grand Officers . " But , on the whole , I prefer to rest my contention on the verbiage of the Book of Constitutions dnu the practice of Grand Lodge , undoubted and unchangln g ; since 1 S 15 . & ini ° P ut matter as simply and plainly as I can , can any 'nstance be adduced since 1815 where Grand Lodge has Gmn P ! n « ded T ^ y a Pa s' Grand Warden , or any Past vin 7 .: i >; fBce , . o £ Grand Lodge , in the presence of a Provincial Grand " r-- — - ¦ - . —
Master ? is nf l . ? f'Y District Grand Master , as their precedence of , V , C / ' - ° , V ; " •' ' than , Sfi 5- In the Constitutions in nr , li' r' ' , Provincial Grand Masters were fiftq stitutIn ? P rece , ckn < * - Curiously enough , by those Con-Ihe < ' < ° r m \ y Hi In st Graml "aster " could " assume " Master ""' 1 « , * 1 ch ? . ' hut t ,, e " "eputy Grand a We of " ih n ™ ? "\ ' £ ' ' - ° '' ge ; " and , in the "wnccof the Deputy , the "Grand Officer next in rank
Original Correspondece.
and seniority shall act'pro tempore . '" f , therefore venture to repeat that the " status" of Provincial Grand Masters , and , according to the present Book of Constitutions , that of District Grand Masters , is one no wise affected by the ingenious and subtle pleadings of " Bayard , " " Reviresco , " " Lex Scripta , " and " A Puzzled Student . "
I see that all these able writers keep reasserting that they have " proved " so-and-so , whereas I conte . nd they have really " proved nothing , " though they have asserted a good deal , and that the only comment outsiders can make on this prolonged and important controversy is , " As you were . " Yours fraternally , NOT INFALLIBLE .
To the Editor of the "Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — With the causes or the consequences of the discussion now proceeding , your readers will be alike unconcerned . Be the former ever so trifling , or the latter ever so momentous , these have no bearing whatever on the actual and legal status of Grand Officers ; our inquiry in this particular , being restricted to the terms of the Constitutions
and the force they possess . If , however , I am allowed a short digression from the real point at issue , I think it can be shown that the limitation of the title of "Grand Officers" to the office bearers of Grand Lodge will not in any way lessen cither the rank or the dignity of Provincial Grand Masters . For this purpose I will now adduce extracts from the Constitutions of Scotland and Ireland respectively : —
[ From Constitutions of G . Lodge of Scotland , Ed . 1 S 79 , pp 1 and 26 . ] " The Grand Lodge of Scotland consists of the Grand Master Mason , .... Provincial or District Grand Masters , Senior and Junior Grand Wardens , . . . the Master and Wardens . . . . of all subordinate lodges . The office bearers [ italics mine ] of the Grand Lodge consist of a Grand Master , Past Grand Master . . . . Senior and Junior Grand Wardens , .... [ Provincial / istricc masters 111
ana L orana nor namcaj . cue aosence of the Grand Master the chair shall be filled in the following order : By the Past Grand Master .... Provincial Grand Masters ; Senior Grand Wardens , . . { District Grand Masters not named . ]" [ From Constitutions of G . Lodge of Ireland , Ed . 1 S 75 . ] " [ P . 2 , Rule 3 . ] The members [ italics mine ] of the Grand Lodge rank in the following order , viz .: The Grand Master , .... Provincial Grand Masters ; the Senior Grand Wardens , ....
" [ P- S- ] At each meeting of the Grand Lodge the Grand Lodge shall be opened and ruled by the Grand Master , and in his absence by the Deputy Grand Master , and in his absence by the member [ italics mine ] of Grand Lodge then present , who shall be next in order of precedence , according to Rule No . 3 , . . . . " [ P . 12 . ] The Grand Master , and all the Grand Officers [ italics mine ] except the Deputy Grand Master ,
that is to say , the Grand Wardens , Grand Treasurer [ and so on down to ] Grand Inner Guard [ Provincial Grand Masters not named ] , shall be annually elected by the Grand Lodge . " It is worthy of note that Irish Past Provincial Grand Masters in the scale of precedence [ p . 2 , Rule I 3 *] are ranked after the junior of the Grand Officers , viz ., the Grand Inner Guard . But in the Constitutions of Scotland
these dignitaries though not according to p . if ( ante ) forming part of the Grand Lodge , are accorded at p . 33 precedence in Grand Lodge and otherwise , after actual Provincial Grand Masters , and before Grand Wardens . We find , therefore , by the Scotch Constitutions that Provincial Grand Masters form part of the Grand Lodge , but are not office bearers , and by the Irish regulations that they are members of Grand Lodge , but not Grand
Officers , whilst in both countries—Scotland and Irelandthey are called upon to preside over Grand Lodge according to their position on the scale of precedence . I'hc status of English Provincial Grand Masters is almost identical with that of corresponding dignitaries in Scotland and Ireland , but not quite . An unlucky proviso at p . 23 (" Constitutions of Grand Lodge of England" ) ordains " If at any Grand Lodge the Grand Master be
absent , the lodge shall be ruled by the Grand Officer or Past Grand Officer next in rank and seniority who may be present , " & c . Now , in order to ascertain who are " Grand Officers , " the Book of Constitutions must be further consulted , and we find accordingly that Provincial Grand Masters do not come within this description . Shortl y stated , the affirmative of the proposition , that Provincial Grand Masters are
Grand Officers , is at best inferential , whilst the negative is express . In the Freemason of 13 th November , " Not Infallible" states : — " In expounding laws it isawellknown axiom of construction , never to allow a distinct provision ( italics mine ) to be over-ruled by an inferential intrepretation . " B y virtue of this reasoning , which is merely the Latin maxim cited in my previous letter put into an English form , it is unequivocally oroved that Provincial Grand
Masters are not Grand Officers . An alteration of our Constitutions , to the effect that , in the absence of the Grand Master , Grand Lodge shall be ruled by the member then present next in order of precedence—would at once regularise our ordinary procedure , and also bring it into complete harmony with that of the Sister Grand Lodges of Scotland and Ireland . That some distinction between Provincial and District
Grand Masters is desirable , most brethren will admit . For my own part , I cannot quite see the justice of denying any special privilege to Nos . 2 , 12 , and 4—the three survivors of the "four old lodges" —who , in 1717 , formed and created the " Premier Grand Lodge of the World , " whilst an aggregate of three lodges in any foreign country or settlement , is held sufficient to justify the appointment of a District Grand Master , or , in other words , of a permanent member of Grand Lodge , with rank and dignity superior to
that of a Grand Warden of England ! Referring to the expression " Grand Master's Officers , " which has cropped up in the course of this discussion , I apprehend that before this phrase is endowed with legal meaning , it will be necessary for the Grand Lodge of England to adopt a practice not uncommon in America , and to publish a code of "Grand Masters'decisions having the force of law . " Yours fraternally , LEX SCRIPTA .
Original Correspondece.
BRO . DR . GOSS CRUCEFIX " . To the Editor of the " FrcCilUisdiii ' Dear Sir and Brother , — Will you please allow me to explain td Bro . J .-Marsden that ; L did not allude to Bro . Crucefix as d spurious Mason ; I referred to Bro . J . J . J . Gourgas , 33 of America , who constituted the English Supreme Grand Council on the application of Bro . Crucefix , and regret that he has misunderstood me . Bro . Gourgas was not initiated
into the Craft in a regular lodge , and is , therefore , ' held up by the opponents of the A . and A . RiteasaspuriousIMason , and , as far as I know , the allegation has never been answered ; the A . and A . Rite has , pretty generally , maintained its legal right to confer the Craft grade , but they do tlot exercise it either in America or in England , and if they did confer the Craft Degrees they would be treated as spurious . I may inform Bro . Southwood that he will find the
circumstances attending the suspension of Bro . Crucefix , told by himself in the 1 S 40 volume of the " Freemasons ' Ouarterly Review . " I have so many written enquiries in regard to the history of this brother that I should be glad if you would settle these enquiries , once for all , in your pages . I do not doubt that he was a duly qualified medical practitioner , if I did I do not think I should raise the question in your pages . I wish , however , to enquire in
what college he took his degree , what degree , and under what name ? Personal to myself , I shall be glad if you will allow me an explanatory word . It is not my custom to answer letters which are written anonymously , because I think the space of any periodical may be better used . Where a brother gives his name in an honourable way to any statement he may make as to facts , I may meet him on
those grounds , and I consider I have every right to expose wilful perversions of truth or erroneous statements . I cannot help thinking that had I sent you anonymously an abusive letter without any apparent object , you would , very Tproperly , have declined to insert it . I answered the letter of Bro . Duncan in the way such aletter deserved . In the last number of the Freemason you pertinently enquire what the "Craft has to do with the matter , " in reference to
the conflicting claims of the A . and A . Rite and the A . and P . Rite . I will tell you what they have to dc with it . Ever since the rite was started the emissaries of the A . and A . Rite have sought out our members , and threatened them with exclusion from Craft provincial office and lodge office ; this very thing is now occurring in Lancashire and Yorkshire . Even had the A . and A . Rite all the authority which you
seem to imagine , there are many Masons who do not wish to belong to that rite , and this for various reasons , apart from any disrespect to it . Wh y then should you wish to exclude such from the benefits of a High Grade Masonry which takes their fancy ? The A . and A . Rite does not suit me in its forms , ceremonies , history , or system of government ; there are many who think as I do . Do you say to us , " You shall have this or nothing ? " The ini ' ustice of such
an answer would be a hundredfold more intense if I were not a Christian ; as it is , I look upon it as an attempt to infringe upon my liberty and my conscience . Admitting your assertions in their full force as to the antiquity of the Ancient and Accepted Rite , I would put respectfully to you the following questions : 1 . Did its institution by Lacorne annul the practice of all the other rites from which he made his collection ?
2 . You must answer that it did not . Tell us then at what time and in what way it became a sovereign power with the infallible right to anathematise all other rites practising similar Degrees . 3 . If you answer that Frederick the Great conferred it upon them in 17 S 6 " , you will then be asked to prove the authenticity of the said charter . 4 . That charter proved—the labour of Sisyphus—you will
have to show that Frederick possessed a legitimate power to destroy all other rites , and ihow he derived it . If you fail in all this , as you must , we come back to our original proposition , that our claims are as good as the A . and A . Rite without reference to dates . In Masonic rites we are governed by the law of selection :
the best win in the long run ; and the A . and P . Rite is quite willing to leave their chances to the arbitrament of time , in all good fellowship . Respectfully yours , JOHN YARKER . [ We publish this letter with pleasure , having excised one or two passages . —ED . F . M . ]
To the Editor ofthe "Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — I frankly admit that I was wrong in using the word " expelled" in reference to the late Dr . Crucefix-Goss , but at the time I wrote my letter to you I was unable to refer to the papers connected with his case . I have now done so , and I am sorry to say that matters look considerably worse than 1 thought them . .
The word I should have employed was " suspended , " but when that sentence of suspension was appealed against , a very narrow majority of Grand Lodge restored Dr . Crucefix-Goss ' s rights as a Craft Mason . The censure was , in . fact , as effectual as expulsion ; and had it not been for the magnanimous feelings exhibited by the Grand Master , H . R . H . the Duke of Sussex , no doubt the attacks made upon the Duke by Dr . Crucefix would have been punished
by expulsion . He was not even just towards his brethren , Henry Udall , Davyd VV . Nash , the Rev . George Oliver , and others , in the establishment of the Ancient and Accepted Rite . Desirous of eminence , he procured , surreptitiously , from a council having no corporate right to grant such a document ^ the charter by which the Ancient and Accepted Rite now grant such Degrees as they are possessed of . This , and not the mvthical charter of Frederick the Great of Prussia ,
was the document to which I relerred . At the time when it was proposed to form into a system many of the Degrees now in use , and certainly existing as the "Emperors of the East and West" jn France from 1765-1780 , there could not exist any objection to such formation , and it was earnestly advocated by the brethren
named above , several of whom 1 knew , and with whom I have conversed on the subject . The Duke of Sussex , knowing what harm was ^ done to true Craft Masonry by the constant exhibition of these High Degrees , was adverse to their re-establishment . He ver , y reasonably conjectured that the chaos into which Masor / ry had been plunged by the needy Masonic advctl >
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Ar00900
especially of its respected President to call the attention of the brethren , " in season and out of season , " to the unchanging verity of that good old axiom , " be just before you arc generous . " * Two distinguished members of general society
have passed away , full of years and honours , during the last week , who deserve a " passing note" in the friendl y pages of the Freemason . The one is the lamented Lord Chief Justice , SIR
A . COCKBURN , who will long be missed in the Court he so ably presided over and in the society he adorned so much ; the other is Field Marshal SIR CHARLES Y ORKE , a good old soldier , and a most kindly man .
WE publish Bro . YARKER ' letter elsewhere in re the Ancient and Primitive Rite , but we must venture to impress upon him the desirability of a little
more moderation in the language he uses and the epithets he applies . We shall allude to the subject again in our next . We regret to see , as " Craftsmen , " the personality evoked b y such discussions .
Answers To Queries.
ANSWERS TO QUERIES .
i . Provincial Grand Masters in the colonies and foreign parts were first designated District Grand Masters by resolution of Grand Lodge on the 6 th December , 1 S 65 . 2 . Bro . Robert Thomas Crucefix was suspended for six months by the Board of General Purposes on the 10 th of March , 1 S 40 , and the suspension was confirmed by Grand Lodge on the 3 rd of June , 1 S 40 . T . F .
Original Correspondece.
Original Correspondece .
[ We do not holtlioursclvcs responsible for , or even approving of , the opinions expressed by our correspondents , but we wish in a spirit of fair play to all to permit—within certain necessary limits—free discussion . !
GRAND OFFICERS . To the Editor 0 / the " Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — I have been very much interested in the able discussion which has been going on for some weeks past in your columns . 1 cannot bring myself to'look upon either Provincial or District Grand Masters as officers of Grand
Lodge , but rather members of that body with a defined status . In support of this view , I beg to quote Rule 6 , p . 19 , of the Book of Constitutions , " No brother shall hold more than one ofiice . in the Grand Lodge at one and the same time . " If , therefore , Provincial Grand Masters are officers either of or
in Grand Lodge , I should look upon this regulation as being constantly violated , as for many years the Deputy Grand Master has invariably been a Provincial Grand Master , and it will be in your recollection that a Royal Warden was installed also to that office . I am , dear Sir and Brother , yours fraternally , P . G .
To the Editor of the "Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — I am quite pleased to see that " Bayard" has returned to the charge so full of life and chaff , though I cannot congratulate him cither on his own reading of my last letter , or somebody else's suggestions . I by no means give up the legal interpretation ofthe Book of Constitutions .
to which I adhere , hut , in the course of the argument , l felt that , as "Lex Scripta" pointed out fairl y , there was an actual distinction between Provincial and District Grand Masters ; and , as the main objection was to the latter , not to the former , I saw no objection in saying that we might fairl y distinguish between them for various reasons , which it is needless to detail . But 1 foresaw the difficulties , as I
said , and quite go with " Past District Grand Master " in the last Freemason thereanent . I . do not think , for one , that " Bayard , " or " Lex scripta , " or " Rcviresco" have proved that Provincial and District Grand Masters are not Grand Officers . All they have proved is , which nobody contested really , that they are not "invested officers , " and which , also , nobody said
they were . ., ^ ut tney have not proved , as they cannot prove , that 'hey do not come under the term " Grand Officers " in the clause of the Book of Constitutions relative to presidency m Grand Lodge . With respect to " Grand Master ' s Office * F > J do not see that in the present controversy the order of the Duke of Sussex affects our arguments , though ! . m'ght tend to prove that thev were covered hv H IP wnrA
Grand Officers . " But , on the whole , I prefer to rest my contention on the verbiage of the Book of Constitutions dnu the practice of Grand Lodge , undoubted and unchangln g ; since 1 S 15 . & ini ° P ut matter as simply and plainly as I can , can any 'nstance be adduced since 1815 where Grand Lodge has Gmn P ! n « ded T ^ y a Pa s' Grand Warden , or any Past vin 7 .: i >; fBce , . o £ Grand Lodge , in the presence of a Provincial Grand " r-- — - ¦ - . —
Master ? is nf l . ? f'Y District Grand Master , as their precedence of , V , C / ' - ° , V ; " •' ' than , Sfi 5- In the Constitutions in nr , li' r' ' , Provincial Grand Masters were fiftq stitutIn ? P rece , ckn < * - Curiously enough , by those Con-Ihe < ' < ° r m \ y Hi In st Graml "aster " could " assume " Master ""' 1 « , * 1 ch ? . ' hut t ,, e " "eputy Grand a We of " ih n ™ ? "\ ' £ ' ' - ° '' ge ; " and , in the "wnccof the Deputy , the "Grand Officer next in rank
Original Correspondece.
and seniority shall act'pro tempore . '" f , therefore venture to repeat that the " status" of Provincial Grand Masters , and , according to the present Book of Constitutions , that of District Grand Masters , is one no wise affected by the ingenious and subtle pleadings of " Bayard , " " Reviresco , " " Lex Scripta , " and " A Puzzled Student . "
I see that all these able writers keep reasserting that they have " proved " so-and-so , whereas I conte . nd they have really " proved nothing , " though they have asserted a good deal , and that the only comment outsiders can make on this prolonged and important controversy is , " As you were . " Yours fraternally , NOT INFALLIBLE .
To the Editor of the "Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — With the causes or the consequences of the discussion now proceeding , your readers will be alike unconcerned . Be the former ever so trifling , or the latter ever so momentous , these have no bearing whatever on the actual and legal status of Grand Officers ; our inquiry in this particular , being restricted to the terms of the Constitutions
and the force they possess . If , however , I am allowed a short digression from the real point at issue , I think it can be shown that the limitation of the title of "Grand Officers" to the office bearers of Grand Lodge will not in any way lessen cither the rank or the dignity of Provincial Grand Masters . For this purpose I will now adduce extracts from the Constitutions of Scotland and Ireland respectively : —
[ From Constitutions of G . Lodge of Scotland , Ed . 1 S 79 , pp 1 and 26 . ] " The Grand Lodge of Scotland consists of the Grand Master Mason , .... Provincial or District Grand Masters , Senior and Junior Grand Wardens , . . . the Master and Wardens . . . . of all subordinate lodges . The office bearers [ italics mine ] of the Grand Lodge consist of a Grand Master , Past Grand Master . . . . Senior and Junior Grand Wardens , .... [ Provincial / istricc masters 111
ana L orana nor namcaj . cue aosence of the Grand Master the chair shall be filled in the following order : By the Past Grand Master .... Provincial Grand Masters ; Senior Grand Wardens , . . { District Grand Masters not named . ]" [ From Constitutions of G . Lodge of Ireland , Ed . 1 S 75 . ] " [ P . 2 , Rule 3 . ] The members [ italics mine ] of the Grand Lodge rank in the following order , viz .: The Grand Master , .... Provincial Grand Masters ; the Senior Grand Wardens , ....
" [ P- S- ] At each meeting of the Grand Lodge the Grand Lodge shall be opened and ruled by the Grand Master , and in his absence by the Deputy Grand Master , and in his absence by the member [ italics mine ] of Grand Lodge then present , who shall be next in order of precedence , according to Rule No . 3 , . . . . " [ P . 12 . ] The Grand Master , and all the Grand Officers [ italics mine ] except the Deputy Grand Master ,
that is to say , the Grand Wardens , Grand Treasurer [ and so on down to ] Grand Inner Guard [ Provincial Grand Masters not named ] , shall be annually elected by the Grand Lodge . " It is worthy of note that Irish Past Provincial Grand Masters in the scale of precedence [ p . 2 , Rule I 3 *] are ranked after the junior of the Grand Officers , viz ., the Grand Inner Guard . But in the Constitutions of Scotland
these dignitaries though not according to p . if ( ante ) forming part of the Grand Lodge , are accorded at p . 33 precedence in Grand Lodge and otherwise , after actual Provincial Grand Masters , and before Grand Wardens . We find , therefore , by the Scotch Constitutions that Provincial Grand Masters form part of the Grand Lodge , but are not office bearers , and by the Irish regulations that they are members of Grand Lodge , but not Grand
Officers , whilst in both countries—Scotland and Irelandthey are called upon to preside over Grand Lodge according to their position on the scale of precedence . I'hc status of English Provincial Grand Masters is almost identical with that of corresponding dignitaries in Scotland and Ireland , but not quite . An unlucky proviso at p . 23 (" Constitutions of Grand Lodge of England" ) ordains " If at any Grand Lodge the Grand Master be
absent , the lodge shall be ruled by the Grand Officer or Past Grand Officer next in rank and seniority who may be present , " & c . Now , in order to ascertain who are " Grand Officers , " the Book of Constitutions must be further consulted , and we find accordingly that Provincial Grand Masters do not come within this description . Shortl y stated , the affirmative of the proposition , that Provincial Grand Masters are
Grand Officers , is at best inferential , whilst the negative is express . In the Freemason of 13 th November , " Not Infallible" states : — " In expounding laws it isawellknown axiom of construction , never to allow a distinct provision ( italics mine ) to be over-ruled by an inferential intrepretation . " B y virtue of this reasoning , which is merely the Latin maxim cited in my previous letter put into an English form , it is unequivocally oroved that Provincial Grand
Masters are not Grand Officers . An alteration of our Constitutions , to the effect that , in the absence of the Grand Master , Grand Lodge shall be ruled by the member then present next in order of precedence—would at once regularise our ordinary procedure , and also bring it into complete harmony with that of the Sister Grand Lodges of Scotland and Ireland . That some distinction between Provincial and District
Grand Masters is desirable , most brethren will admit . For my own part , I cannot quite see the justice of denying any special privilege to Nos . 2 , 12 , and 4—the three survivors of the "four old lodges" —who , in 1717 , formed and created the " Premier Grand Lodge of the World , " whilst an aggregate of three lodges in any foreign country or settlement , is held sufficient to justify the appointment of a District Grand Master , or , in other words , of a permanent member of Grand Lodge , with rank and dignity superior to
that of a Grand Warden of England ! Referring to the expression " Grand Master's Officers , " which has cropped up in the course of this discussion , I apprehend that before this phrase is endowed with legal meaning , it will be necessary for the Grand Lodge of England to adopt a practice not uncommon in America , and to publish a code of "Grand Masters'decisions having the force of law . " Yours fraternally , LEX SCRIPTA .
Original Correspondece.
BRO . DR . GOSS CRUCEFIX " . To the Editor of the " FrcCilUisdiii ' Dear Sir and Brother , — Will you please allow me to explain td Bro . J .-Marsden that ; L did not allude to Bro . Crucefix as d spurious Mason ; I referred to Bro . J . J . J . Gourgas , 33 of America , who constituted the English Supreme Grand Council on the application of Bro . Crucefix , and regret that he has misunderstood me . Bro . Gourgas was not initiated
into the Craft in a regular lodge , and is , therefore , ' held up by the opponents of the A . and A . RiteasaspuriousIMason , and , as far as I know , the allegation has never been answered ; the A . and A . Rite has , pretty generally , maintained its legal right to confer the Craft grade , but they do tlot exercise it either in America or in England , and if they did confer the Craft Degrees they would be treated as spurious . I may inform Bro . Southwood that he will find the
circumstances attending the suspension of Bro . Crucefix , told by himself in the 1 S 40 volume of the " Freemasons ' Ouarterly Review . " I have so many written enquiries in regard to the history of this brother that I should be glad if you would settle these enquiries , once for all , in your pages . I do not doubt that he was a duly qualified medical practitioner , if I did I do not think I should raise the question in your pages . I wish , however , to enquire in
what college he took his degree , what degree , and under what name ? Personal to myself , I shall be glad if you will allow me an explanatory word . It is not my custom to answer letters which are written anonymously , because I think the space of any periodical may be better used . Where a brother gives his name in an honourable way to any statement he may make as to facts , I may meet him on
those grounds , and I consider I have every right to expose wilful perversions of truth or erroneous statements . I cannot help thinking that had I sent you anonymously an abusive letter without any apparent object , you would , very Tproperly , have declined to insert it . I answered the letter of Bro . Duncan in the way such aletter deserved . In the last number of the Freemason you pertinently enquire what the "Craft has to do with the matter , " in reference to
the conflicting claims of the A . and A . Rite and the A . and P . Rite . I will tell you what they have to dc with it . Ever since the rite was started the emissaries of the A . and A . Rite have sought out our members , and threatened them with exclusion from Craft provincial office and lodge office ; this very thing is now occurring in Lancashire and Yorkshire . Even had the A . and A . Rite all the authority which you
seem to imagine , there are many Masons who do not wish to belong to that rite , and this for various reasons , apart from any disrespect to it . Wh y then should you wish to exclude such from the benefits of a High Grade Masonry which takes their fancy ? The A . and A . Rite does not suit me in its forms , ceremonies , history , or system of government ; there are many who think as I do . Do you say to us , " You shall have this or nothing ? " The ini ' ustice of such
an answer would be a hundredfold more intense if I were not a Christian ; as it is , I look upon it as an attempt to infringe upon my liberty and my conscience . Admitting your assertions in their full force as to the antiquity of the Ancient and Accepted Rite , I would put respectfully to you the following questions : 1 . Did its institution by Lacorne annul the practice of all the other rites from which he made his collection ?
2 . You must answer that it did not . Tell us then at what time and in what way it became a sovereign power with the infallible right to anathematise all other rites practising similar Degrees . 3 . If you answer that Frederick the Great conferred it upon them in 17 S 6 " , you will then be asked to prove the authenticity of the said charter . 4 . That charter proved—the labour of Sisyphus—you will
have to show that Frederick possessed a legitimate power to destroy all other rites , and ihow he derived it . If you fail in all this , as you must , we come back to our original proposition , that our claims are as good as the A . and A . Rite without reference to dates . In Masonic rites we are governed by the law of selection :
the best win in the long run ; and the A . and P . Rite is quite willing to leave their chances to the arbitrament of time , in all good fellowship . Respectfully yours , JOHN YARKER . [ We publish this letter with pleasure , having excised one or two passages . —ED . F . M . ]
To the Editor ofthe "Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — I frankly admit that I was wrong in using the word " expelled" in reference to the late Dr . Crucefix-Goss , but at the time I wrote my letter to you I was unable to refer to the papers connected with his case . I have now done so , and I am sorry to say that matters look considerably worse than 1 thought them . .
The word I should have employed was " suspended , " but when that sentence of suspension was appealed against , a very narrow majority of Grand Lodge restored Dr . Crucefix-Goss ' s rights as a Craft Mason . The censure was , in . fact , as effectual as expulsion ; and had it not been for the magnanimous feelings exhibited by the Grand Master , H . R . H . the Duke of Sussex , no doubt the attacks made upon the Duke by Dr . Crucefix would have been punished
by expulsion . He was not even just towards his brethren , Henry Udall , Davyd VV . Nash , the Rev . George Oliver , and others , in the establishment of the Ancient and Accepted Rite . Desirous of eminence , he procured , surreptitiously , from a council having no corporate right to grant such a document ^ the charter by which the Ancient and Accepted Rite now grant such Degrees as they are possessed of . This , and not the mvthical charter of Frederick the Great of Prussia ,
was the document to which I relerred . At the time when it was proposed to form into a system many of the Degrees now in use , and certainly existing as the "Emperors of the East and West" jn France from 1765-1780 , there could not exist any objection to such formation , and it was earnestly advocated by the brethren
named above , several of whom 1 knew , and with whom I have conversed on the subject . The Duke of Sussex , knowing what harm was ^ done to true Craft Masonry by the constant exhibition of these High Degrees , was adverse to their re-establishment . He ver , y reasonably conjectured that the chaos into which Masor / ry had been plunged by the needy Masonic advctl >