Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Notice.
" A . Y . /' Durhani , writes ' : — The Book of Constitutions providesthat a copy of the byedaws of a Lodge , when approved "b y the Grand Master or Prov . Grand Master , must be sent to the Grand Secretary . The byedawof a Lodge show the approval by the B . Prov . G . M ., but do not show the deposit with the Grand Sec .
Will the Grand Sec . inform me whether they were deposited or not ? ' ISTo doubt the desired information would be given at the G-raiid Secretary ' s office upon proper application . If a letter , asking for it , remains unanswered more than a reasonable time , write to us again , and we will make personal application for you . / ' .-. ' ¦¦ ' ¦ ' ¦¦ " rri . ~ : ~~ ¦ ¦ - ~ - « v ~~> i i . . I .:. * x-- . cc ' t-x * ii , ~ i , __ ~ i „ . ~ . ~ ' t ~ ~~ x _ i „ ~ — _ . xi , ' . ' . ~~—The writes —¦ If the b do contain incon
,, , „ same correspondent : " yedaws anything - sistent with the Book of Constitutions , as to the admission of a member without a ballot ( the Book of Constitutions says inconsistent with the regulations of the Grand Lodge ) , will such laws be binding , having teen so approved , and if not , will the Brother admitted a member of a Lodge upon such byedaws , be an illegal member thereof ? He is clearly . a member so far as the private Lodge is concerned , but would Grand Lodge interfere , particularly as several years have elapsed , and
he has filled several offices therein , and it would be unjust to visit the negligence of the framers of the byedaws , the D . Prov . Gr . M . and the G . Sec , upon the Brother who wasJgnorant of its illegality . "If a Lodge has beeii acting under byedaws in contravention of the general laws aslaid down in the Book of Constitutions , it is liable to be cited before the Board of General Purposes , to answer for its conduct . And even though it should be deprived of its charter— -an extreme measure of
punishment" —those who had been initiated under such illegal laws ( the legality or illegality of which they cannot be supposed to know prior to becoming Masons ) would not be allowed to suffer any further inconvenience than that of their temporary secession from their duties , whilst arranging to enter another Lodge . All their rights and privileges as Masons would be fully acknowledged by Grand Lodge .
Hierophant says : — "In the Lodge of which lam member , preferment among Masons generally goes by seniority ; and the W . M . this year having been elected in opposition to the usual custom , three or four malcontents feel themselves aggrieved . Those entitled by seniority can neither open or close , whilst the W . M . elected can work the 3 Degrees , lecture , and install- but being junior ( in the Lodge , but senior by having held the S . W . ' s chair ) , his election has given offence
to some of the seniors . If the Brethren were all alike eligible for the chair , seniority I suppose would then decide the question ; but if so , which Brother would be entitled to precedence ? The Brother first initiated ; the Brother first raised ; the Brother first appointed to fill either of the Warden ' s chairs ; or should it go thus : — " A . B . .. S . W . in 1855 .
"C . D . .. J . W . " 1855 . " E . F . .. S . W . " 1856 . " D . E . ,. J . W . " 1856 . First , A . B ., and then D . E ., as seniors in rank , irrespective of their joining the Lodge , raising , or occupancy of the J . W . a chair . I suppose the latter would be the case , because a J . W . should by right ( though not of necessity ) be S . W . before he is Master . I should like to have your opinion , to endeavour to preserve harmony amongst the disaffected , but do not allude to the Lodge . "
As preferment in Masonry should be by merit rather than seniority , the Brethren of Hierophant's Lodge have acted perfectly in accordance with the Constitutions and the principles which should govern all our assemblies in electing as Master one who can perform the duties of the chair in preference to one who cannot . We take your idea of precedency to be that which is strictly correct if
all were equally eligible by talent and Masonic knowledge ; but if they were not , we do not see why the Wardens of 1855 should not have been advanced in 1856 , unless it happened that the Master was elected for a second time . If that were so , it only shows the inexpediency of talcing that course excepting under very peculiar circumstances . Were we elected to the chair for a second year , we would not displace a single officer , knowing as wo do that it would be likely to give
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Notice.
" A . Y . /' Durhani , writes ' : — The Book of Constitutions providesthat a copy of the byedaws of a Lodge , when approved "b y the Grand Master or Prov . Grand Master , must be sent to the Grand Secretary . The byedawof a Lodge show the approval by the B . Prov . G . M ., but do not show the deposit with the Grand Sec .
Will the Grand Sec . inform me whether they were deposited or not ? ' ISTo doubt the desired information would be given at the G-raiid Secretary ' s office upon proper application . If a letter , asking for it , remains unanswered more than a reasonable time , write to us again , and we will make personal application for you . / ' .-. ' ¦¦ ' ¦ ' ¦¦ " rri . ~ : ~~ ¦ ¦ - ~ - « v ~~> i i . . I .:. * x-- . cc ' t-x * ii , ~ i , __ ~ i „ . ~ . ~ ' t ~ ~~ x _ i „ ~ — _ . xi , ' . ' . ~~—The writes —¦ If the b do contain incon
,, , „ same correspondent : " yedaws anything - sistent with the Book of Constitutions , as to the admission of a member without a ballot ( the Book of Constitutions says inconsistent with the regulations of the Grand Lodge ) , will such laws be binding , having teen so approved , and if not , will the Brother admitted a member of a Lodge upon such byedaws , be an illegal member thereof ? He is clearly . a member so far as the private Lodge is concerned , but would Grand Lodge interfere , particularly as several years have elapsed , and
he has filled several offices therein , and it would be unjust to visit the negligence of the framers of the byedaws , the D . Prov . Gr . M . and the G . Sec , upon the Brother who wasJgnorant of its illegality . "If a Lodge has beeii acting under byedaws in contravention of the general laws aslaid down in the Book of Constitutions , it is liable to be cited before the Board of General Purposes , to answer for its conduct . And even though it should be deprived of its charter— -an extreme measure of
punishment" —those who had been initiated under such illegal laws ( the legality or illegality of which they cannot be supposed to know prior to becoming Masons ) would not be allowed to suffer any further inconvenience than that of their temporary secession from their duties , whilst arranging to enter another Lodge . All their rights and privileges as Masons would be fully acknowledged by Grand Lodge .
Hierophant says : — "In the Lodge of which lam member , preferment among Masons generally goes by seniority ; and the W . M . this year having been elected in opposition to the usual custom , three or four malcontents feel themselves aggrieved . Those entitled by seniority can neither open or close , whilst the W . M . elected can work the 3 Degrees , lecture , and install- but being junior ( in the Lodge , but senior by having held the S . W . ' s chair ) , his election has given offence
to some of the seniors . If the Brethren were all alike eligible for the chair , seniority I suppose would then decide the question ; but if so , which Brother would be entitled to precedence ? The Brother first initiated ; the Brother first raised ; the Brother first appointed to fill either of the Warden ' s chairs ; or should it go thus : — " A . B . .. S . W . in 1855 .
"C . D . .. J . W . " 1855 . " E . F . .. S . W . " 1856 . " D . E . ,. J . W . " 1856 . First , A . B ., and then D . E ., as seniors in rank , irrespective of their joining the Lodge , raising , or occupancy of the J . W . a chair . I suppose the latter would be the case , because a J . W . should by right ( though not of necessity ) be S . W . before he is Master . I should like to have your opinion , to endeavour to preserve harmony amongst the disaffected , but do not allude to the Lodge . "
As preferment in Masonry should be by merit rather than seniority , the Brethren of Hierophant's Lodge have acted perfectly in accordance with the Constitutions and the principles which should govern all our assemblies in electing as Master one who can perform the duties of the chair in preference to one who cannot . We take your idea of precedency to be that which is strictly correct if
all were equally eligible by talent and Masonic knowledge ; but if they were not , we do not see why the Wardens of 1855 should not have been advanced in 1856 , unless it happened that the Master was elected for a second time . If that were so , it only shows the inexpediency of talcing that course excepting under very peculiar circumstances . Were we elected to the chair for a second year , we would not displace a single officer , knowing as wo do that it would be likely to give