-
Articles/Ads
Article THE MASONIC MIRROR. ← Page 2 of 2
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
The Masonic Mirror.
had hitherto been the practice—conferred it upon a Lodge bearing a high character in the Craft for the excellence of its work and the talent of many of its membersit was the intention of his Lordship that the lecture should be delivered in such a manner and at such a time , that , as far as possible , the whole Craft might be benefited by it .
We certainly believe that the M . W . Gr . M . himself made a slight mistake when he conferred the office upon a Lodge without dlefining the Brother who should deliver it ; but it is impossible that the Grand M : aster can of himself know the relative talent and weight of Masonic character of aU the members of a Lodge ; and he may have refrained from inquiry on the subject , thinking it a greater compliment to the Lodge to allow the Brethren to select from amongst themselves the Brother for honour to whom honour was most due . That it was ever intended
to be left in the hands of the W . M ., or any other person , without the Lodge being consulted on the matter , we -do not believe ; and we trust that in future appointments , the M . W . G . M . will make such inquiries—through his Officers , or
Brethren in whom he may place confidence—as will enable him to nominate the individual , and not the Lodge , who shall be singled out for the honour of the Prestonian lecture . With the manner of the delivery we have now nothing to do ( thought we hear
that had we been present we should have had a good opportunity of bringing a critical pen into play ) , but it is the principle of whether the lecture is to be private or public upon which we feel called upon to express an opinion . We are not aow—though we may do so at some future time—about to dilate upon what we think a Prestonian lecture ought to be , but we are bound to state that from the moment when the Prestonian lecture was revived , we always understood ( as we are sure the members then present in Grand Lodge did ) it was to be
publicly delivered ; and so strongly were we impressed with this opinion that , four weeks since , in answer to a correspondent , we said : — " We have not heard when the Prestonian lecture is to be delivered . We should presume that sufficient notice will be given to insure a full muster of the Craft . " Had the Royal York Lodge , or their Master , erred in ignorance of its being the desire of many of the
Craft to be present ( and if they could entertain such an opinion they must have felt they were about to receive an honorarium of £ 9 or £ 10 for that which way worthless ) , there might be the less ground of complaint ; but we have reason to know it was not so . We are informed on reliable authority , that not only was the notice we have quoted shown to several of the leading Brethren in the Lodge , "but the propriety of sending an intimation of its being proposed to deliver the
lecture to the Freemasons * Magazine was actually mooted at the Audit Committee , discussed , and negatived . We repeat , a great want of courtesy has been displayed by the Royal York Lodge towards the body of the Craft ; though we believe that we can as confidently assure the Brethren that they have nothing to regret in not having been invited to be present at the delivery of a lecture which had evidently been unrehearsed , if it was even understood .
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
The Masonic Mirror.
had hitherto been the practice—conferred it upon a Lodge bearing a high character in the Craft for the excellence of its work and the talent of many of its membersit was the intention of his Lordship that the lecture should be delivered in such a manner and at such a time , that , as far as possible , the whole Craft might be benefited by it .
We certainly believe that the M . W . Gr . M . himself made a slight mistake when he conferred the office upon a Lodge without dlefining the Brother who should deliver it ; but it is impossible that the Grand M : aster can of himself know the relative talent and weight of Masonic character of aU the members of a Lodge ; and he may have refrained from inquiry on the subject , thinking it a greater compliment to the Lodge to allow the Brethren to select from amongst themselves the Brother for honour to whom honour was most due . That it was ever intended
to be left in the hands of the W . M ., or any other person , without the Lodge being consulted on the matter , we -do not believe ; and we trust that in future appointments , the M . W . G . M . will make such inquiries—through his Officers , or
Brethren in whom he may place confidence—as will enable him to nominate the individual , and not the Lodge , who shall be singled out for the honour of the Prestonian lecture . With the manner of the delivery we have now nothing to do ( thought we hear
that had we been present we should have had a good opportunity of bringing a critical pen into play ) , but it is the principle of whether the lecture is to be private or public upon which we feel called upon to express an opinion . We are not aow—though we may do so at some future time—about to dilate upon what we think a Prestonian lecture ought to be , but we are bound to state that from the moment when the Prestonian lecture was revived , we always understood ( as we are sure the members then present in Grand Lodge did ) it was to be
publicly delivered ; and so strongly were we impressed with this opinion that , four weeks since , in answer to a correspondent , we said : — " We have not heard when the Prestonian lecture is to be delivered . We should presume that sufficient notice will be given to insure a full muster of the Craft . " Had the Royal York Lodge , or their Master , erred in ignorance of its being the desire of many of the
Craft to be present ( and if they could entertain such an opinion they must have felt they were about to receive an honorarium of £ 9 or £ 10 for that which way worthless ) , there might be the less ground of complaint ; but we have reason to know it was not so . We are informed on reliable authority , that not only was the notice we have quoted shown to several of the leading Brethren in the Lodge , "but the propriety of sending an intimation of its being proposed to deliver the
lecture to the Freemasons * Magazine was actually mooted at the Audit Committee , discussed , and negatived . We repeat , a great want of courtesy has been displayed by the Royal York Lodge towards the body of the Craft ; though we believe that we can as confidently assure the Brethren that they have nothing to regret in not having been invited to be present at the delivery of a lecture which had evidently been unrehearsed , if it was even understood .