Exclusion Of Visitors At Masonic Trials.

character , w-as informed , in reply ( I quote the precise words , which were subsequently proved in open lodge ) , " I did not black ball you because I had anything against your public or private character , but I did so for private reasons of my own , which have determined me to black ball every one who may be proposed in Albion Lodge , were it even my own brother . "

The rejected brother thereupon brought a charge before the lodge against him for un-Masonic conduct , in having so black balled him without cause . For the investigation of this charge , a copy of which was immediately transmitted to the accused , I summoned a special , or emergent meeting of the lodge , and as there had been what I considered very improper interference

, on the part of several members of a Scotch Lodge here ( the St . Andrew ' s , No 356 ) , with the concerns of the Albion—indeed , one of the brethren ( who figures lower down as attemptingtobeardineinthechair ) had even gone about the streets , whilst he was yet an E . A ., canvassing for the candidate opposed to me at the election for W . M . in 1861 , as if the same had been some common council

affair—I determined that none should be present at this meeting who were not members of the lodge . But although of my intention iu this respect the fraternity throughout the city were well advised , there were several visitors present when I opened the lodge . When , however , it was opened , I requested , in the most courteous manner , all present who were not members of the lodge ,

except those who had been summoned as witnesses , to withdraw . My request was at once complied with by every one , except the member of St . Andrew ' s to whom I have just adverted , who , I bad been previously informed , intended to be present to " test the question" of my right ( so I presume he meant ) to exclude visitors , and who , in the most unjustifiable manner , endeavoured to address the chair . This I energetically prevented , and told him , if he would not withdraw upon my courteous

request to that effect , I should have to order him to do so . As ho still persisted , I was at length obliged peremptorily to order him to retire , when he left the room . The accused brother was then put upon his trial , in which he was assisted by all the legal talent of the two afore-mentioned unsuccessful aspirants to the chair of W . M ., and after a lengthened investigation was

found guilty by the almost unanimous voice of the lodge , there being only two dissentients , namely , the aforesaid appellant ( tho " W . M . of St . John ' s Lodge ) , and a P . M . of St . Andrew ' s Lodge , who is also a member of the Albion , and the sentence of permanent exclusion from the lodge passed upon him . It happened at this meeting that the regular Tler

y ofthe lodge , not being able to attend , had , with my concurrence , engaged a member of tbe St . Andrew ' s to take his place , and he tyled the lodge for him . At its next meeting , a complaint for un-Masonic conduct was brought before St . Andrew ' s Lodge against this brother , for not having left his post when a member of his lodge , who bad urged him to do so , had been ordered to retire from

Albion Lodge . This was done without any notice whatever having been given him of the complaint , or any opportuuity afforded him to defend himself against it ; and the same having been sustained by a majority of the lodge , upon the ex parte statement of the brother who had been ordered to retire from Albion Lodge , a further rote of censure was passed against him , he being

absent , and altogether ignorant of the whole proceedings . At the following meeting of the lodge , when the W . M . having put the minutes for confirmation in the usual manner , a member of Albion Lodge , who is at the same time an honorary member of St . Andrew ' s , made a motion , which was duly seconded , that that part ofthe minutes relating to the censure ofthe brother in question he not confirmed , which the W . M . refused to put . Tbe said brother then made another motion , founded on Sec . 8 , Chap . 11 , of the Scottish Constitutions . This

motion the W . M . also refused to put . The W . M . then again put the minutes for confirmation , when there appeared a majority against their being confirmed . He thereupon declared that the minutes must be confirmed , provided there was nothing in them contrary to fact ; and after asking each brother separately whether the minutes were correctly recorded , and none saying nay , he declared

them duly confirmed , basing his decision upon a passage in " Lauries' History of Masonry , " page 292 . The brother who had acted as Tyler for the Albion , as aforesaid , was thereupon called up and censured , when be declared off the lodge . The St . Andrew ' s Lodge has also appealed to the Grand Lodge of Scotland against mebecause I ordered

, one of its members to retire from the Albion upon the occasion referred to , as well as against the D . Prov . G . M . for Quebec , & c , for not having , on its complaint to him , censured me for doing so . Indeed this Scotch lodge , tho only one in tho city , appears to be quite an irresponsible body . It has proved itself , if I may use the expression , a very Masonic Ishmael ; and in the case ofthe

troubles in the Albion , there is no doubt that several of its leading members lent their influence to increase them , and to bring discredit and ruin upon the lodge , mainly , I have reason to believe , because it was the foremost English lodge here , aud that it would not submit to the dictation of two or three of its members who were possessed of more assurance than either education , intelligence , or Masonic feeling .

Immediately after the above-mentioned trial in Albion Lodge , I wrote letters to the different lodges iu the city , explanatory of my decision in excluding visitors upon that occasion , which , with the exception of the St . Andrew ' s , w erc deemed satisfactory . The Civil Service ( No . 148 , R . C . ) , the Warrington ( No . 49 , R . C . ) , aud the St . John ' s ( No . 182 , E . R . ) , respectively passed resolutions

highly commendatory of my conduct , that of the St . John ' s Lodge being in the following terms : — "That , with reference to the letter of W . Bro . William Spink , W . M . of Albion Lodgo , of the 23 rd February , 1863 , this lodge regrets that W . Bro . Spink should have thought that any of its members felt slighted , or at all annoyed , with his decision on the occasion referred to ,

but , on the contrary , quite concur in the opinion expressed in his said letter ; and that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to W . Bro . Spink . " The brother who had brought the charge against the member of Albion Lodge , which had resulted , as above shown , in the exclusion of the latter , being an honorary member of St . John ' s Lodge , was , in his turn , subjected

to a charge for non-Masonic conduct , brought against him shortly afterwards in that lodge by the excluded brother , to the effect that he had violated the secrets of the ballot and disclosed Masonic conversations .

For the trial of this charge , the W . M . of St . John ' s Lodge ( following my example , so far ) summoned an emergency meeting , at which , after a protracted inquiry , tho charge , although ably followed up by the senior partner in tho legal co-partnership above referred to , who acted as the accuser ' s counsel , was disposed of by the twofold declaration that the accused was not guilty , and that

the charge was " malicious , frivolous , and vexatious , " which decision would have been carried unanimously had not two of the members , objecting simply to the word " malicious" iu the motion , voted against it . Previous to this trial the "W . M . of St . John's Lodge called upon P . Prov . G . M ., George Thompson , an honorary member of that lodgeand one of the most

respect-, able men , as well as ablest , most zealous , and brightest Masons in the cit }' , to ask his advice how it had best be conducted . Bro . Thompson advised him to conduct ib precisely as I had done in tho recent trial in the Albion . The W . M . of St . John ' s then said he would not exclude visitors . Brother Thompson replied that if he did .