Contents.

CONTENTS .

E DITOBIAL : RULE 210—EXCLUSION .. .. Frontpage THE Q UALIFICATIONS OF OUR MEMBERS .. .. 25 G THE R ITUAL ( continued ) .. .. .. .. 25 G MASONIC POET ' S CORNER .. .. .. 257 ROYAL MASONIC BENEVOLENT INSTITUTION .. .. 257

MARK M ASONRY .. .. .. .. .. 257 ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE AND ANSWERS .. .. 258 " HIGH TWELVE " —EVENINGS ABROAD .. .. 259 OUR C ITY ARTICLE .. .. .. .. .. 259

OUR T RESTLE BOARD—NOTIFICATIONS .. .. 2 ( i 0 REPORTS OF LODGES AND CHAPTERS .. .. 200 & 201 PROVINCIAL LODGES AND CHAPTERS .. .. 2 ( i 2 k 2 ( ii 5 METROPOLITAN LODGES AND CHAPTERS .. .. 2 ( ii ADVERTISEMENTS .. Front cover . 251 , 265 , 2 ( i ( l , 207 , 2 <> 8

Rule 210- Exclusion.

Rule 210- Exclusion .

EFORE the endeavour of Bro . J . F . H . Woodward to amend tlie somewhat ambiguous reading of Eule 210 , which treats of the " mode of permanent exclusion "

from lodge membership , is altogether shelved , as it appears likely will be the case , it would be , in our opinion , to the

advantage of the Craft generally if a careful consideration of the regulation as it now stands , and of the amendment suggested , were given without personal bias or the influence

of debate in Grand Lodge . There , unfortunately , the limit of time wherein to properly and fairly discuss important questions arising out of our system of Jurisprudence

prevents the necessary conception in many minds of the nature of the arguments adduced for or against any projected measure of reform , and the voting power is

more frequently than not exercised before judgment is sufficiently matured . We think something of this character has caused the total rejection of our worthy

brother ' s motion to amend the rule which , as it affects the individual character and position of each member of the Masonic Order , is probably the most important of the 312

sections which comprise the General Laws and Regulations for the Government of the Craft under the English Constitution .

Let us dissect that Rule : — " Every Lodge has the power to permanently exclude any of its members for sufficient cause , provided that such member shall have received

( italics are ours ) due notice in writiwj of the complaint made against him , aud of the time appointed for its consideration , when lie may attend and be heard . " Here is a

distinct proviso without the observance of which no action can be taken . We can find no clause which determines the mode in which the fact of due notice having been received

Rule 210- Exclusion.

shall be substantiated or even presumed . It is positive that the member " shall have received due notice , " and proof that same has been sent to him does not comply with

the regulation ; nor would Bro . Woodward's proposal that such notice should be sent by a registered letter , and a post office receipt for same produced , be " evidence" of the

absolute fact of receipt by the person implicated , unless indeed such receipt were signed by the addressee himself , which is not invariably the case . So that to render this

part of Rule 210 effective , a clause for substituted service appears to be absolutely necessary to secure , in the words of Bro . Woodward , " some finality as to a lodge ' s

responsibility , as regards service of the notice , which should be accepted by the Board of General Purposes in case of appeal . "

We are assuming that the necessity for sending any such notice at all arises from some gross act of moral turpitude or aggravated Masonic offence , which , if proved , could not

be purged by other than the penultimate penalty ci exclusion . We hold that even in such case the actions of the presumed delinquent Brother should be of such importance

as to justify , on proof , the infliction by Grand Lodge itself of the ultimate penalty—Exclusion—and if desired , and justice requires it , that is secured by direct reference to the Board of

General Purposes . But if the power of exclusion is sought to be exercised on a question of non-payment of Lodge dues , then we say the application of Rule 210 is needless , for the

oidinary provisions of the Bye Laws of most , if not all , of our Lodges are , or should be , sufficient for the exclusion from membership of any one . or other of them , and the

necessity for its amendment on that ground docs not exist . The next clause of Rule 210 , and the only other with

which we are now immediately concerned , says : " This power of exclusion can only be exercised by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present . "

Bro . Woodward contends that to this clause should be

added the words " who vote , " the effect of which would be that all others present , when after discussion the question is put from the chair , are to be placed in the category of

absentees . In this contention we cannot agree with our worthy brother , and are disposed to consider Bro . Samuel Pope ' s remarks on the subject unanswerable . He says : " It

is conceivable that brethren present may not be able to make up their minds to exclude , but still hesitate to vote so as to express any toleration of the conduct objected to . " And

when we reflect on the serious importance of the resultant verdict on the individual brother to be affected thereby , it

is not only reasonable , but kind and consistent with our masonic principles , as well as abstract justice , that the defendant should have the benefit of the doubt . There is