-
Articles/Ads
Article EXCLUSION AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. Page 1 of 2 Article EXCLUSION AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. Page 1 of 2 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Exclusion And Its Consequences.
EXCLUSION AND ITS CONSEQUENCES .
THE brother whose appeal to Grand Lodge against the sentence of exclusion passed on him by his own Lodge was dismissed at the last Quarterly Communication , seems to have a very faint idea of the pains and penalties he has incurred by his un-Masonic behaviour ,
and there also appears to be a diversity of opinion among brethren generally as to the full effect of the sentence passed upon him . There is little doubt bufc that Grand Lodge will ere long be appealed to for an official decision
on the matter , but in the meantime , certainly before the next regular Communication , questions of grave importance may arise , even if the work of Freemasonry in one
Lodge afc least is nofc delayed , through the action of the brother implicated . It is not our intention to devote any consideration to the actual facts of the case which led to
the sentence of exclusion ; suffice it to say that for most un-Masonic behaviour a brother has been excluded from his Lodge , the Master of the Province in which the Lodge
is held haa sustained the sentence , and Grand Lodge has unanimously refused to entertain au appeal to set the sentence aside .
Before coming to any decision as to tho full effect of this sentence , we must discover the Masonic significance of the term "exclusion . " The note to Rule 210 of the Constitutions , to which we are referred by the Index for
' * the meaning of the term , " defines ifc as being used " upon the removal of a brother from a private Lodge , " while " expelled is used only when a brother is removed from the Craft by the Grand Lodge , or a district Grancl Lodge . "
This note then defines when it is to be used , rather than " the meaning of the term , " and we must look elsewhere for a more reliable definition , before we can proceed further . This we are unable to find in the
Constitutions , except by implication ; bufc b y tracing the several Rules applicable to the subject , and taking them in connection with a resolution of Grand Lodge specially made to meet such decisions , we feel we
can make out a case . The Report of the Board of General Purposes submitted to Grand Lod ge at the Communication of March last , ancl which was formally adopted , contained among other matters , a resolution to the effect that "the
suspension of any particular brother involves an entire incapacity on his part to exercise any right or duties as a Mason , or to participate in any Masonic privileges during the period such suspension remains in force , " thereby
putting a stop once for all to the idea that a brother mi ght be suspended from one Lodge , and laugh at the sentence by appearing in another of which he was a member . In other words , suspension from a Lodge means suspension
from Freemasonry , and by the same argument exclusion from a Lodge must equally mean exclusion from the Craft . We have alread y shown the connection between expulsion aud exclusion—the one being used ( Note to Rule 210 )
when a brother is removed from the Craft by the Grand Lod ge , " and the other " upon the removal of a brother from a private Lodge "—and therefore we may look to -ttule 273 for further assistance in defining the meauino * of the
term used . Rule 273 provides that— "The Board [ of General Purposes ] may proceed to admonition , fine or suspension , according to the laws .... but should any case be of so flagrant a nature as to require the expulsion of a brother , tho Board shall make a special
Exclusion And Its Consequences.
report thereon to the Grand Lodge . " This Rule then clearly shows that expulsion by Grand Lodge is a much more severe penalty than suspension , ancl the same must equally apply to the case of a private Lodge as regards its
sentences of exclusion and suspension . Being * then a more severe punishment than suspension it naturally follows that " exclusion " is not less severe in its application , aud thus we find thafc the sentence of exclusion passed on this
brother ' involves an entire incapacity on his part to exercise any rights or duties as a Mason , or to participate in any Masonic privileges during the period such . ' .... remains in force . "
There are other points in connection with the case which confirm our , ruling , even if what we have adduced is nofc sufficient . Grancl Lodge has been appealed to to upset the decision of the private Lodge , which was dul y sustained
by the Provincial Grand Master , and has unanimously refused to interfere . Grand Lodge has accordingly confirmed the sentence , and by so doing we think has brought it within the scope of Rule 5 of the Constitutions , which
states that " tho Grand Lodge alone has the power of . . expelling brethren from fche Craft , a power which it does not delegate to any subordinate authority in England . " This might perhaps have been a point for argument
previous to the passing of the resolution as to the effect of a sentence of suspension ( already referred to ) , bufc now we do not think there is any necessity to touch upon it , as the Rule and the resolution taken together imply that although
Grancl Lodge does nofc delegate its power of expelling brethren from tho Craft to any subordinate authority , it does so far delegate this authorit y as to uphold a sentence
of suspension ( which is now virtuall y the same as expulsion or exclusion ) unless appealed againsfc , and decided in opposition to the verdict given b y the private Lodge .
So far we have considered fche sentence as affected by the laws of the Order alone , and it is of course on that basis the case must be decided , but there is also the spirit of Freemasonry to be taken into consideration , and this
would surely never tolerate the presence in our midst of a brother who has behaved in such a manner as to bring down the condemnation of the members of his own Lodge , of his Provincial Grand Master , and of Grand Lodge also ,
much less allow him to force his presence among the brethren he has personally insulted . But the brother who in this instance is the one implicated is , we believe , one of
the principal Officers designate of a new Lodge , which is to be consecrated by tho Provincial Grand Master who sustained the sentence of exclusion , while some of the founders ai * e so circumstanced in connection Avith the
case thafc they can hardl y truthfully say , when called upon at the consecration , that they approve of the whole of the officers named in the warrant , and here arises a point of considerable difficult y , unless the special sanction of the
Grancl Master is sought aud obtained previous to the consecration . Rule 121 of the Constitutions is to the effect thafc " No Brother shall be ... . invested as a Warden of a new Lodge , except the Brother named in
the warrant for such office , unless by special snnctiou nf tho Grand Master . " This , taken in conjunction with Rule 120 , which provides that " every new Lodge shall be polemnl y consh'tuted , " and Rule 129 , which stipulates that
the regular Officers of a Lodge consist of the Master and his two Wardens , & c . " would seem to imply that the Lodge cannot be properly consecrated unless some special steps are taken , or the Consecrating Officer and Founders are
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Exclusion And Its Consequences.
EXCLUSION AND ITS CONSEQUENCES .
THE brother whose appeal to Grand Lodge against the sentence of exclusion passed on him by his own Lodge was dismissed at the last Quarterly Communication , seems to have a very faint idea of the pains and penalties he has incurred by his un-Masonic behaviour ,
and there also appears to be a diversity of opinion among brethren generally as to the full effect of the sentence passed upon him . There is little doubt bufc that Grand Lodge will ere long be appealed to for an official decision
on the matter , but in the meantime , certainly before the next regular Communication , questions of grave importance may arise , even if the work of Freemasonry in one
Lodge afc least is nofc delayed , through the action of the brother implicated . It is not our intention to devote any consideration to the actual facts of the case which led to
the sentence of exclusion ; suffice it to say that for most un-Masonic behaviour a brother has been excluded from his Lodge , the Master of the Province in which the Lodge
is held haa sustained the sentence , and Grand Lodge has unanimously refused to entertain au appeal to set the sentence aside .
Before coming to any decision as to tho full effect of this sentence , we must discover the Masonic significance of the term "exclusion . " The note to Rule 210 of the Constitutions , to which we are referred by the Index for
' * the meaning of the term , " defines ifc as being used " upon the removal of a brother from a private Lodge , " while " expelled is used only when a brother is removed from the Craft by the Grand Lodge , or a district Grancl Lodge . "
This note then defines when it is to be used , rather than " the meaning of the term , " and we must look elsewhere for a more reliable definition , before we can proceed further . This we are unable to find in the
Constitutions , except by implication ; bufc b y tracing the several Rules applicable to the subject , and taking them in connection with a resolution of Grand Lodge specially made to meet such decisions , we feel we
can make out a case . The Report of the Board of General Purposes submitted to Grand Lod ge at the Communication of March last , ancl which was formally adopted , contained among other matters , a resolution to the effect that "the
suspension of any particular brother involves an entire incapacity on his part to exercise any right or duties as a Mason , or to participate in any Masonic privileges during the period such suspension remains in force , " thereby
putting a stop once for all to the idea that a brother mi ght be suspended from one Lodge , and laugh at the sentence by appearing in another of which he was a member . In other words , suspension from a Lodge means suspension
from Freemasonry , and by the same argument exclusion from a Lodge must equally mean exclusion from the Craft . We have alread y shown the connection between expulsion aud exclusion—the one being used ( Note to Rule 210 )
when a brother is removed from the Craft by the Grand Lod ge , " and the other " upon the removal of a brother from a private Lodge "—and therefore we may look to -ttule 273 for further assistance in defining the meauino * of the
term used . Rule 273 provides that— "The Board [ of General Purposes ] may proceed to admonition , fine or suspension , according to the laws .... but should any case be of so flagrant a nature as to require the expulsion of a brother , tho Board shall make a special
Exclusion And Its Consequences.
report thereon to the Grand Lodge . " This Rule then clearly shows that expulsion by Grand Lodge is a much more severe penalty than suspension , ancl the same must equally apply to the case of a private Lodge as regards its
sentences of exclusion and suspension . Being * then a more severe punishment than suspension it naturally follows that " exclusion " is not less severe in its application , aud thus we find thafc the sentence of exclusion passed on this
brother ' involves an entire incapacity on his part to exercise any rights or duties as a Mason , or to participate in any Masonic privileges during the period such . ' .... remains in force . "
There are other points in connection with the case which confirm our , ruling , even if what we have adduced is nofc sufficient . Grancl Lodge has been appealed to to upset the decision of the private Lodge , which was dul y sustained
by the Provincial Grand Master , and has unanimously refused to interfere . Grand Lodge has accordingly confirmed the sentence , and by so doing we think has brought it within the scope of Rule 5 of the Constitutions , which
states that " tho Grand Lodge alone has the power of . . expelling brethren from fche Craft , a power which it does not delegate to any subordinate authority in England . " This might perhaps have been a point for argument
previous to the passing of the resolution as to the effect of a sentence of suspension ( already referred to ) , bufc now we do not think there is any necessity to touch upon it , as the Rule and the resolution taken together imply that although
Grancl Lodge does nofc delegate its power of expelling brethren from tho Craft to any subordinate authority , it does so far delegate this authorit y as to uphold a sentence
of suspension ( which is now virtuall y the same as expulsion or exclusion ) unless appealed againsfc , and decided in opposition to the verdict given b y the private Lodge .
So far we have considered fche sentence as affected by the laws of the Order alone , and it is of course on that basis the case must be decided , but there is also the spirit of Freemasonry to be taken into consideration , and this
would surely never tolerate the presence in our midst of a brother who has behaved in such a manner as to bring down the condemnation of the members of his own Lodge , of his Provincial Grand Master , and of Grand Lodge also ,
much less allow him to force his presence among the brethren he has personally insulted . But the brother who in this instance is the one implicated is , we believe , one of
the principal Officers designate of a new Lodge , which is to be consecrated by tho Provincial Grand Master who sustained the sentence of exclusion , while some of the founders ai * e so circumstanced in connection Avith the
case thafc they can hardl y truthfully say , when called upon at the consecration , that they approve of the whole of the officers named in the warrant , and here arises a point of considerable difficult y , unless the special sanction of the
Grancl Master is sought aud obtained previous to the consecration . Rule 121 of the Constitutions is to the effect thafc " No Brother shall be ... . invested as a Warden of a new Lodge , except the Brother named in
the warrant for such office , unless by special snnctiou nf tho Grand Master . " This , taken in conjunction with Rule 120 , which provides that " every new Lodge shall be polemnl y consh'tuted , " and Rule 129 , which stipulates that
the regular Officers of a Lodge consist of the Master and his two Wardens , & c . " would seem to imply that the Lodge cannot be properly consecrated unless some special steps are taken , or the Consecrating Officer and Founders are