-
Articles/Ads
Article THE MASONIC MIE10E ← Page 3 of 13 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
The Masonic Mie10e
Brethren had no means of forming an opinion on the subject then brought before them , beyond what they could gather from the certainly lucid statement of the Deputy Grand Master . In that statement , however , there were " some errors , and errors which I consider of importance- ^ though , of course , while I say this , ' I do not believe that any Brother makes assertions in Grand Lodge without thinking that he is speaking correctly , and endeavouring to do so to the best of his
knowledge . ( Hear , hear . ) In the few observations I propose to make , I shall endeavour , as far as possible , to follow the arrangement of the points adopted by the R . W . I ) . G . M . in bringing the matter originally before Grand Lodge . His lordship observed that , before going into the merits of the case , he would call the attention of the Brethren to the position of the Province of Tasmania . He then said— It consists of four Lodges : three held at Launceston , and one at Hobart Town > The three held at Launceston—I do not recollect their numbers— -are
named respectively , Paith , Hope , and Charity . The Lodge held at Hobart Town is No . 781 . In 1856 , as the memorial states , Bro . Ewing was , by the prerogative of the G . M ., and on the recommendation of three out of the four Lodges in the Province , named Prov . CM . ' Most Worshipful Grand Master , I am not going to question your prerogative to appoint a Prov . G . M . to rule over even one Lodge , if you should think proper to do so ; but when we are told that Brother Ewing was recommended by three out of the four Lodges which were in existence , I am bound to say that , according to the evidence before us , the
three Lodges in question were not legally , irpexistence at the time that the recommendation was made . It seems doubtful to me whether they were even in possession of their warrants at the time the Prov . G . M . received his appointment . One thing is clear , that the recommendation of the Brethren could not be received by the authorities at home , unless they were duly registered on the books of Grand Lodge which I contend they could scarcely have been , as it would appear to me that the applications for the warrants for the new Lodges must have been sent by the same mail as the recommendations . 1 do not know exactly
what was the date of Brother Ewing ' s patent , but I find the first notification of it given to the Brethren of Hobart Town in a letter from the Grand Secretary bearing date the 12 th of December , 1856 , and I have therefore , looking at other dates , a right to presume that the same mail carried out the appointment of Bro . Ewing as carried out the warrants of the Lodges in question . Moreover , Bro . Ewing's first official document is dated in the following February , just about the same time as the Grand Secretary ' s letter arrived in Hobart Town . I have , further , a right , my lord , to assume that these Lodges were not in existence at the time of the so-called recommendation of the Prov . G . M . ; for , in the oificial calendar ,
published under the authority of Grand Lodge in the previous November , only one month before the appointment of Bro . Ewing , mention is only made of one Lodge as existing at Launceston ( No . 901 ) . It is true , that I may be told that these Lodges might have been working under dispensation ( Hear , hear ) long enough to give them a right to make the recommendation which they did make at the time that they applied for their warrant . But even if it were so , one of the Lodges must have been very recently constituted , and for the very purpose , it would seem to me , of constituting a province ; for I find , so late as November 1855 , the W . M . of 901 , at Launceston , writing to the W . M . of 778 , at Hobart
down , to know whether he can legally give a dispensation for opening a new Lodge , there being only one Lodge then working rcgidarly under the English constitutions , But he admits that there was another Lodge which had been working some time under dispensation , called " The Peace and Harmony / ' and asks what course should be adopted in regard to that Lodge—whether the Launceston Brethren ought to acknowledge it , having been working ^ e years without any acknowledgment from Grand Lodge , and without , of course , its
members being registered , I do not know which of the new Lodges , Paith or Charity—or either of them—originated in the last-named Lodge , nor would I have alluded to the circumstance , had not the D . G . M . made it a charge against Bro . Toby and the Hobart Town Brethren , that they had endeavoured to cut one Lodge into three for no other purpose than that of forming a province—the very course which , it would appear , has been successfully adopted in Launcewton .
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
The Masonic Mie10e
Brethren had no means of forming an opinion on the subject then brought before them , beyond what they could gather from the certainly lucid statement of the Deputy Grand Master . In that statement , however , there were " some errors , and errors which I consider of importance- ^ though , of course , while I say this , ' I do not believe that any Brother makes assertions in Grand Lodge without thinking that he is speaking correctly , and endeavouring to do so to the best of his
knowledge . ( Hear , hear . ) In the few observations I propose to make , I shall endeavour , as far as possible , to follow the arrangement of the points adopted by the R . W . I ) . G . M . in bringing the matter originally before Grand Lodge . His lordship observed that , before going into the merits of the case , he would call the attention of the Brethren to the position of the Province of Tasmania . He then said— It consists of four Lodges : three held at Launceston , and one at Hobart Town > The three held at Launceston—I do not recollect their numbers— -are
named respectively , Paith , Hope , and Charity . The Lodge held at Hobart Town is No . 781 . In 1856 , as the memorial states , Bro . Ewing was , by the prerogative of the G . M ., and on the recommendation of three out of the four Lodges in the Province , named Prov . CM . ' Most Worshipful Grand Master , I am not going to question your prerogative to appoint a Prov . G . M . to rule over even one Lodge , if you should think proper to do so ; but when we are told that Brother Ewing was recommended by three out of the four Lodges which were in existence , I am bound to say that , according to the evidence before us , the
three Lodges in question were not legally , irpexistence at the time that the recommendation was made . It seems doubtful to me whether they were even in possession of their warrants at the time the Prov . G . M . received his appointment . One thing is clear , that the recommendation of the Brethren could not be received by the authorities at home , unless they were duly registered on the books of Grand Lodge which I contend they could scarcely have been , as it would appear to me that the applications for the warrants for the new Lodges must have been sent by the same mail as the recommendations . 1 do not know exactly
what was the date of Brother Ewing ' s patent , but I find the first notification of it given to the Brethren of Hobart Town in a letter from the Grand Secretary bearing date the 12 th of December , 1856 , and I have therefore , looking at other dates , a right to presume that the same mail carried out the appointment of Bro . Ewing as carried out the warrants of the Lodges in question . Moreover , Bro . Ewing's first official document is dated in the following February , just about the same time as the Grand Secretary ' s letter arrived in Hobart Town . I have , further , a right , my lord , to assume that these Lodges were not in existence at the time of the so-called recommendation of the Prov . G . M . ; for , in the oificial calendar ,
published under the authority of Grand Lodge in the previous November , only one month before the appointment of Bro . Ewing , mention is only made of one Lodge as existing at Launceston ( No . 901 ) . It is true , that I may be told that these Lodges might have been working under dispensation ( Hear , hear ) long enough to give them a right to make the recommendation which they did make at the time that they applied for their warrant . But even if it were so , one of the Lodges must have been very recently constituted , and for the very purpose , it would seem to me , of constituting a province ; for I find , so late as November 1855 , the W . M . of 901 , at Launceston , writing to the W . M . of 778 , at Hobart
down , to know whether he can legally give a dispensation for opening a new Lodge , there being only one Lodge then working rcgidarly under the English constitutions , But he admits that there was another Lodge which had been working some time under dispensation , called " The Peace and Harmony / ' and asks what course should be adopted in regard to that Lodge—whether the Launceston Brethren ought to acknowledge it , having been working ^ e years without any acknowledgment from Grand Lodge , and without , of course , its
members being registered , I do not know which of the new Lodges , Paith or Charity—or either of them—originated in the last-named Lodge , nor would I have alluded to the circumstance , had not the D . G . M . made it a charge against Bro . Toby and the Hobart Town Brethren , that they had endeavoured to cut one Lodge into three for no other purpose than that of forming a province—the very course which , it would appear , has been successfully adopted in Launcewton .