Masonic Impostors.

Freemasonry . It is quite time that some organization should take place between provincial lodges , with a view to put a stop to such shameful practices . If the individual brethren of every lodge would cease to give aid to such men , aud on all occasions refer them to the appointed Almoner , the evil would materially

abate , and the money now wasted upon impostors or undeserving brethren would do much to enrich our valuable Masonic charities . Tours fraternally , WILLIAM DAY KEYWOETH , P . M . 57 , P . P . G . Supt . of Works , N . & E . Torkshire , aud Almoner for 57 , 257 , & 1 , 010 . 54 , Saville-steet , Hull . 31 st March , 1 SG 9 .

P.M.'S And The Working Brethren Of Lodges.

P . M . 'S AND THE WORKING BRETHREN OF LODGES .

TO TUB EDITOE OF THE EREESTASOXS' ATAGAZIXE AXD AtASOXIC ATIRKOH . Dear Sir and Brotber , —My worthy friend and brother , Dr . Hopkins , in his communication to you ( p . 270 ante ) , has brought under the notice of the Craft a moot poinc of Masonic law , which , I agree with him in hoping " will be well ventilated , and that a correct , or at least a definitedecision may be the result . "

, The learned Doctor having done me the honour of asking my opinion on tho point in question , has , in his communication to you , referred to that opinion , in conjunction with that of others , in a way which , so far as I am concerned , is calculated , as it appears to me , to lead ( I am sure quite unintentionally on his part ) to an erroneous impression as regards the main question in

dispute . Any opinion of mine , of course , goes for very little as compared with that of brethren of far greater eminence and ability in the Craft who have been consulted . Still , as I have been referred to as holding certain views on the matter , I should like , with your permission , to exlainas briefly as I canwhat the view which I took

p , , really was ; the more so as it is only by bringing forward the various readings of the law that the hoped for " correct , or at least definite decision " can be arrived at . I may say , in limine , that I dissented in toto from Bro . Hopkins ' s view that he was legally justified in taking the

chair of the lodge , under the circumstances . Permit me to quote the part of my letter to him relating to this point . I wrote , — " Tour question whether ' a member of a lodge , who is a P . M ., although not of that lodge , is eligible to fill the chair in the absence of the W . M ., if especially requested by him to do so , ' is capable , as it appears to me , of receiving two answers diametrically

opposed to each other , according to tho stand-point from which it is viewed—whether as a matter of brotherly courtesy , or as one of abstract Masonic right . " In the first case , one would conclude that should the W . M . especially request any member of the lodge , being a P . M ., to take the chair , in his absence , all the brethren would bow to the W . M . ' s nomination of a

locum tenens , even should the brother have no legal right to supersede other P . M- ' s who might be present . " Secondly , as to the question of abstract right . On this point , with all submission , I feel bound to say that I cannot concur in your opinion , even though fortified , as ID is , by that of the three eminent brethren to whom you refer . I think , with all humility , that your P CKM .

is right in his interpretation of the law , and for this reason—that in becoming a member of a lodge over which you have not regularly presided as W . M ., you only hold , as it were , the courtesy-title of P . M . in that lodge . You are a P . M . in the lodge , but not of it ; which , to my mind , makes all the difference . Rule 6 , p . 68 ( vol . 1867 ) of the Book of Constitutions , seems to me quite

P.M.'S And The Working Brethren Of Lodges.

explicit on this point : — " In the Master's absence , the immediate Past Master , or , if he be absent , the Senior Past Master of the lodge present shall take the chair . And if no Past Master of thu lodge [ mark the words , not ' Past Master' simply ] be present , then the Senior Warden , or in his absence the Junior Warden , shall rule the lodge . " It is true that the learned Dr . Oliver , in his

Masonic Jurisprudence ( p . 180 ) says of a P . M . ' s rank ( inter alia ) : — " He becomes a permanent member of Grand Lodge so long as he subscribes to any private lodge under the jurisdiction ; for , though he be only a Past Master of the lodge where he has held office , he ranks as Past Master in every lodge to which he may be affiliated as a subscriber , and he possesses the

unquestioned power of initiating candidates into Masonry" ' { i . e ., as contradistinguished from the doubtful power possessed by a Warden ] . This power , however , I conceive , can only be exercised in the absence or with the acquiescence of all the actual P . M . ' s of a lodge of whieh he may become a member . " As regards the matter in disputewe haveof course

, , ,, to take the law as it stands , not as we might individually wish it to be ; and it will be seen that the view I took was substantially the same as is laid down as the law by the Grand Registrar . As to the relative position a P . M . joining another lodge should properly hold therein ,, there are two sides to this , like most other questions ; for whilst on the ono hand it seems only equitable that

a P . M . ' s rank should be duly recognised , on the other hand it would be manifestly unfair that a P . M ., thus affiliated , should supersede or take precedence of any P . M . who has served the office of Master in the lodge . Yours fraternally , WILLIAM KELLY , D . P . G-. M ., Leicestershire . Leicester , April 6 , 1869 .

TO THE EDITOR Off THE FREEltASOXS' ATAGAZIXE AX"D ATASOXIC MIRROR . Dear Sir and Brother , —As one taking Bro . Dr . Hopkins' view of the question raised in his letter which appeared in your columns last week , I am quite prepared and willing to admit that , at first sight , Art . 6 at page 78 of the Book of Constitutions ( 1867 edition ) , appears to enact that the strict right of presiding in a particular

lodge is limited to the W . M . and the P . M . ' s who have served in the office of W . M . of the lodge . But I ask the R . W . Prov . Gr . M . for Devon , and all your readers whomay coincide in his opinion , to bear in mind that this clause is not a penal one , like a section in a penal Act of Parliament , which must be construed strictly ; but , on the contrary , should be regarded as a remedial statute ,,

interpreted liberally , and according to its plain and obvious meaning . If we can find expressions in our Statutes capable of an intelligible and reasonable explanation , it is our duty to give effect to them . We are not to place a critical and literal interpretation on the word shall , unless it appears from the whole section that the Grand Lodge intended it to have such effect . In

the case of a lodge in the first year of its existence where , of course , there is no I . P . M . nor any P . M . ' s , and assuming the W . M . to be unavoidably absent , and a formidable array of P . M . ' s of other lodges present , does the R . W- Prov . G . M . for Devon mean to say that one of them " could not properly preside ? " I pause for a reply ,, and must conclude bexpressing my regret that time

y . will not allow me to enter more fully on this important subject at present- Yours fraternally , > fr B . > b 6 , April , 1869 .