-
Articles/Ads
Article CORRESPONDENCE. ← Page 2 of 3 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Correspondence.
from a general recollection of the law on the subject , and of the duty of the Inner Guard ( repeated at the opening of every Lodge ) to admit Masons on proof . { be ^ now , however , to request the favour of being allowed , through the medium of your columns , to call the attention of the Craft to this matter , and to point out that the proposition made and carried at the last Grand Lodge is not in accordance with the existing Constitutions .
The only clauses which speak of the exclusion of members are , I believe , the following ;—under the head of " The Grand Master , " No . 8 ; " Provincial Grand Master , " No . 4 ; " Private Lodges , " No . 21 ; " Members , and their Duty / ] STo . 6 . ' In each case , the exclusion is exclusion by the Lodge . I find no place where the power to exclude is given to the Master . And even a Lodge cannot
exclude without giving the Brother notice of the complaint against him , and appointing a time for its consideration . The Constitution " Private Lodges , " No . 21 , runs thus : — " No Lodge shall exclude any member without giving him due notice of the complaint made against him / and of the time appointed for its consideration . The name of every Brother excluded , with the cause of exclusion , shall be sent to the Grand Secretary ; and , if a country Lodge , also to the Prov .
Grand Master . . , Again , if & Lodge cannot exclude without going through the formalities enjoined by this law , a fortiori a Master of a Lodge cannot , even if I were to admit that the Master had the power to exclude at all , which I do not admit—and yet , if my recollection serves me , Grand Lodge resolved that the Master could exclude of his own authority , and at once .
Whether it be or , be not desirable to give a Lodge the power to exclude an unworthy member at the moment , and without giving him the previous notice now required , I will not now argue . I can conceive a case in which such a power might be beneficially exercised ; but I should doubt the propriety of placing it in the hands of any individual , looking to the evils which its arbitrary exercise might involve . I remain Sir and Brother , Yours fraternally , Cirencester , Dec . 9 th , 1856 . Geo . Fred . Newmarch .
TO THE EDITOR OF THE FREEMASONS' MAGAZINE AND MASONIC MIRROR . Dear Sir and Brother , —In the September number of your excellent Magazine , I find that the Prov . Grand Master of Western India has come boldly forward , in his own name , and denounced my letter to you of the 5 th March last , as being "full of the most gross misstatements . " He asserts that , he has " no hesitation in declaring" such to be the case , and challenges me to give my name
as he does his . Alas ! the Prov . Grand Master of Western India has bad " no hesitation in declaring" and doing so much that was both ill-judged and wrong that his present " declaration" will have no weight with those who know anything of him ; and , as to his challenge , I am sorry I cannot oblige him . My name you have , and that I think quite sufficient , and my Masonic standing and experience ,
I humbl y submit , entitle my statements to some consideration . 1 have carefully read over again my letter to you of the 5 th March last , and , save in one unimportant particular , I do not see that I have overstated anything . The mistake , I admit , is this : I stated in my letter that the English Lodge ot the of Lod bad been foiled
. George" was revived after W . M . ge Perseverance jn his endeavour to establish a system of Snobocracy . In this I find I was wrong . The Lodge " St . George" was revived before that time , but how , 1 have as yet been unable to ascertain . At all events , the spirit of Cliqucimi only began to be full y developed and ll . W . Bro . Cartwright ' s antagonism to his own Lodge to be manifested on the occasion specified in my letter of the 5 th March last . A
candidate proposed by him , but obnoxious to many of the members , happened to he black-balled in rather a decided manner . His worship got into a rage , had no hesitation in declaring " that there existed in the Lodge a combination to black-hall even / candidate that was brought forward , and actually declared the Lod ge should not open again . He put it to the Lodge then , whether that was not the host course to adopt , but not a hand was raised , in support of his arbitrary VOL . HI . t >
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Correspondence.
from a general recollection of the law on the subject , and of the duty of the Inner Guard ( repeated at the opening of every Lodge ) to admit Masons on proof . { be ^ now , however , to request the favour of being allowed , through the medium of your columns , to call the attention of the Craft to this matter , and to point out that the proposition made and carried at the last Grand Lodge is not in accordance with the existing Constitutions .
The only clauses which speak of the exclusion of members are , I believe , the following ;—under the head of " The Grand Master , " No . 8 ; " Provincial Grand Master , " No . 4 ; " Private Lodges , " No . 21 ; " Members , and their Duty / ] STo . 6 . ' In each case , the exclusion is exclusion by the Lodge . I find no place where the power to exclude is given to the Master . And even a Lodge cannot
exclude without giving the Brother notice of the complaint against him , and appointing a time for its consideration . The Constitution " Private Lodges , " No . 21 , runs thus : — " No Lodge shall exclude any member without giving him due notice of the complaint made against him / and of the time appointed for its consideration . The name of every Brother excluded , with the cause of exclusion , shall be sent to the Grand Secretary ; and , if a country Lodge , also to the Prov .
Grand Master . . , Again , if & Lodge cannot exclude without going through the formalities enjoined by this law , a fortiori a Master of a Lodge cannot , even if I were to admit that the Master had the power to exclude at all , which I do not admit—and yet , if my recollection serves me , Grand Lodge resolved that the Master could exclude of his own authority , and at once .
Whether it be or , be not desirable to give a Lodge the power to exclude an unworthy member at the moment , and without giving him the previous notice now required , I will not now argue . I can conceive a case in which such a power might be beneficially exercised ; but I should doubt the propriety of placing it in the hands of any individual , looking to the evils which its arbitrary exercise might involve . I remain Sir and Brother , Yours fraternally , Cirencester , Dec . 9 th , 1856 . Geo . Fred . Newmarch .
TO THE EDITOR OF THE FREEMASONS' MAGAZINE AND MASONIC MIRROR . Dear Sir and Brother , —In the September number of your excellent Magazine , I find that the Prov . Grand Master of Western India has come boldly forward , in his own name , and denounced my letter to you of the 5 th March last , as being "full of the most gross misstatements . " He asserts that , he has " no hesitation in declaring" such to be the case , and challenges me to give my name
as he does his . Alas ! the Prov . Grand Master of Western India has bad " no hesitation in declaring" and doing so much that was both ill-judged and wrong that his present " declaration" will have no weight with those who know anything of him ; and , as to his challenge , I am sorry I cannot oblige him . My name you have , and that I think quite sufficient , and my Masonic standing and experience ,
I humbl y submit , entitle my statements to some consideration . 1 have carefully read over again my letter to you of the 5 th March last , and , save in one unimportant particular , I do not see that I have overstated anything . The mistake , I admit , is this : I stated in my letter that the English Lodge ot the of Lod bad been foiled
. George" was revived after W . M . ge Perseverance jn his endeavour to establish a system of Snobocracy . In this I find I was wrong . The Lodge " St . George" was revived before that time , but how , 1 have as yet been unable to ascertain . At all events , the spirit of Cliqucimi only began to be full y developed and ll . W . Bro . Cartwright ' s antagonism to his own Lodge to be manifested on the occasion specified in my letter of the 5 th March last . A
candidate proposed by him , but obnoxious to many of the members , happened to he black-balled in rather a decided manner . His worship got into a rage , had no hesitation in declaring " that there existed in the Lodge a combination to black-hall even / candidate that was brought forward , and actually declared the Lod ge should not open again . He put it to the Lodge then , whether that was not the host course to adopt , but not a hand was raised , in support of his arbitrary VOL . HI . t >