-
Articles/Ads
Article CORRESPONDENCE. ← Page 3 of 3 Article CORRESPONDENCE. Page 3 of 3
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Correspondence.
your correspondent , and once that is dono , the apathy and lack of harmony now prevailing , or said to prevail , will give place to energy and the utmost cordiality . I trust the suggestion which " OBSKRYEU" has offered , will bear fruit . Fraternally yours , G . K . E .
GRAND LODGE AND BRO . STEVENS' MOTION .
To the Editor of the FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —Iu tho letter of " A P . G . CHAPLAIN , P . M ., P . Z ., P . M . W . S ., 32 ° , ' * under the above heading , in your impression of this date , I fancy I recognise the composition of my most pronounced opponent in respect of the formation of the Committee of inquiry into practices of Masonic Working .
If I am correct in this impression , tho cause I have at heart requires that I should meet him upon the new ground ho has chosen for his illogical arguments and misrepresentations . If I am mistaken , the subject matter of the letter nevertheless requires correction , whoever may be its author . In either case , I cannot imagine how any one can dosoribe the recent
action of Grand Lodge otherwise than as a change of mind without reasonable cause . In " one of the most crowded meetings " we have ever had , December 1869 , Grand Lodge affirmed the principle on motion made , and agreed to tho appointment of a Committee ; at its ensuing meeting it confirmed that resolution , and if there be any force at all in our " Begulations for tho Government of tho Craft , " and the words
at page 28 , — " If carried and confirmed at the next ensuing meeting of Grand Lodge it becomes a law , "—then I say that we cannot get away from tho fact that there t ' s a law which has not been revoked , and which a dignified and honourable body , such as Grand Lodge is , Bhould see either expunged altogether or fairly carried out . My motion in December last waa that " the Committee be now
appointed . " This was resolved upon , and nothing could have arisen , or rather , did arise , in the interval between then and the meeting of 3 rd March , which rendered the non-confirmation of the resolution other than the result of " pique " and party feeling . Such non-confirmation only defers to a future period the appointment of the Committee , in accordance with an existing law enacted
ten years ago . Does my " Grand " opponent desire it to be understood that the " comparatively small meetings" of Grand Lodge should be of less effect in respect of their deliberations than the most crowded meetings ? If so , what would become of some of our most useful Grand Lodge decisions ? Where is the logic of such an argument ?
Does ho really mean to charge me with " misrepresenting historical facts ? " If so , I beg to refer him , and all those others who have personally informed mo that my motion of December 1869 was not confirmed and made law , to the minutes of the Grand Lodge for the dates referred to . He and tboy will find that after confirmation of the resolution to appoint a Committee the appointment of such
Committee was olono deferred , and not the motion itself . That there may be no further misunderstanding on this point , I append an extract from the report of Grand Lodge meeting of the 2 nd March 1870 . After tho minutes of tho previous meeting had been confirmed , " Bro . Stevens having nominated certain brothren to form tho
Committee , & c , " Bro . Horace Lloyd , Q . C ., proposed an amendment , namoly , — ' Tliat the appointment of this Committee be deferred until the next meeting of the Qiand Lodge . ' Ho did so on two grounds—first , he gathered that , in tho opinion of those around him , too largo a number had been nominated to givo an efficient working
Committeea Committee which , it must bo remembered , would have to inquire , to investigate , and to report ; and secondly , because he thought it was the general opinion that tho subject had not been sufficiently considered to enable thoso present to recommend with precision thoso who should be nominated to servo on the proposed Committee . Hia own idea was that the Committee should be formed from among
a few eminent Freemasons to represent schools of opinion , and that the Grand Eegistrar , tho Grand Secretary , and the Chairman of the Board of General Purposes should be added to their number . Such a Committee , he ventured to think , would give a free and impartial report upon tho question , which would probably receive approval from
all quarters , and ho therefore ventured to hope that tho consideration of the matter of the election of the Committee would he postponed to the next meeting of Grand Lodge . "The amendment , viz ., 'That the question of the nomination of the Committee be deferred until next Grand Lodge , ' was put and carried . "
Is this a revocation of the law in the fulfilment of which tho proposed Committee was nominated ? Most decidedly , no . And therefore am I not right in urging the fact that one of two conraea must be adopted before Grand Lodge can be freed from the solemn obligation to observe its own enactments ? Either the absolute converse of the accepted motion should be as solemnly decreed as was the enactment itself , or its purport should be honourably carried into full effect .
I believe the author of the letter to which I'am replying has the very best opportunity for referring to the file of the Freemason , from which paper I extract the foregoing . How , then , can he be so disingenuous as to let it be inferred that the motion of December
1869 was rejected ? Whether it be agreeable to him or those he can influence , the fact is still ineradicable . Grand Lodge has made a law which it does not see fit to carry out ? Are others of its laws treated in like manner ? Bead through the Book of Constitutions , and observe !
Your correspondent says , " Had Bro . Stevens contented himself vuth asking for a Committeo of inquiry into irregularities , & c , few brothren would probably have objected . " What else have I asked
Correspondence.
for ? Tho exact words of the law made by Grand Lodge in 1869-70 aro as follows : — " That with a view to securing greater uniformity of working and observance of the ' same usagos and customs' throughout the several Lodges held under the authority of tho Grand Lodge of England , a Committee of Past Masters be appointed to inquire into the merits of
the respective systems of working now in practice , and to report to Grand Lodge thereon , with such recommendations as they may think necessary to prevent deviation from tho established mode , such deviations being , according to the Constitutions of Freemasonry , improper , and not to be justified or countenanced . " Is there one word in this which refers to ritual ? Why , then ,
should it be thrust upon me that I desire to interfere with "Ritualistic practices , " whioh may have a charm for some minds , although probably objectionable to others ? Some things may be to your correspondent " extremely interesting , " which to others may bo viewed with " horror and indignation , " and very possibly the Committee , when appointed in accordance with the law of Grand Lodge , may
not interfere with such details , whilst , nevertheless , reporting that some modification in respect thereof might advantageously be made . I am not alone in thinking it a very unfortunate thing that a dooision made , confirmed , and ro-affirmod by Grand Lodge can bo so obstructed as to practically make tho law-giver a law-breaker . I cannot , if I would , having regard to my convictions on this
subject , let tho matter rest in it 3 present phase . My future action must be governed by the surrounding circumstances of" the moment . It may be that I shall myself propose to Grand Lodge that the law it enacted in 1869-70 be absolutely cancelled . Until this be done , or the Committee appointed , we may " gild the pill" as much as wo please , but no other expression than that of " self-stultification " will
define the present inconsistency of Grand Lodge . For my own part , I can conscientiously affirm that I have fought tho battle for Uniformity of Working , or , as some prefer to call it , Unity of Essentials , fairly , and without misrepresentation or " falutin . " I have " pulled no wire , " nor have I " sacrificed truth and fair play at the shrine of party interest . " Can my opponents say as much ? No word of disrespect to Grand Lodge or Grand Lodge
Officers has ever emanated from me , and I challenge even ray most virulent opposer to put his finger on any written sentence of mine which is improper or un-Masonic . That I have given " blow for blow , " in an epistolary sense , I must perforce admit , but not ono ha 3 been delivered in a covert manner . And I am prepared to continue the fight , if necessary , and shall certainly do so upon the very slightest encouragement . The field of controversy is as open for myself as for others , and it is ono in which I delight to find argumentative exercise .
If tho matter is not kept well before the Craft until tho law ia revoked , or the Committee appointed , it will not be my fault . Yours faithfully and fraternally , " JAMES STEVENS ,
P . M ., P . Z ., P . M . W . S ., 18 ° . Clapham , S . W ., 13 th March 1880 .
MASONIC DESIGNATIONS . To the Editor of the FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —I notice the growing practice of prefixing novel appellations to the Masonic titles of distinguished brethren , e . g ., the Grand Treasnrer is frequently addressed as , and he is constantly being termed by your contemporary , tho " gallant "
Chairman , & c , & c . Is this to become Masonically universal ? Or , is it an innovation ? It would sound somewhat oddly to address Bro . Horvey ' s successor as the " gallant" Grand Secretary . One would have thought the Masonic titles of Worthy , Worsbipfnl , Very Worshipful , # c , sufficient for ordinary parlance or use . Is thia an outcome of the prevalent fashion— " want of uniformity ?" Yours truly and fraternally , CrrnER . *
That what appears in these columns is not only read hut carefully studied , must bo evident from a communication we have received within the last few days , in which we are asked to correct an error , for which we are not responsible , but which nevertheless crept into the list of Stewards' contributions at the last Festival of the
Benevolent Institution , It seems that Comp . Theophilus Hallett , whose list amounted to two hundred guineas , represented not only Chapter No . 174 , as described in our list of 14 th February , but also Lodge No . 781 ( Merchant Navy ) . Wo regret that it was impossible for us to have avoided
the omission , and it is with the greatest pleasure we take this our first opportunity of correcting an error which appears to have required nearly a month to discover . We can well understand that Lodge No . 781 should feel hurt that their help had received no recognition , and that while
they shared with Chapter No . 174 the credit of furnishing , by the hands of their joint Steward , one . of the most considerable three-figure contributions , the Chapter got all the
credit . We trust this sorrow will give place to a corresponding sense of joy when they read this small tribute wo now render to their practical benevolence , as illustr ? ted at the first of this year ' s Festivals .
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Correspondence.
your correspondent , and once that is dono , the apathy and lack of harmony now prevailing , or said to prevail , will give place to energy and the utmost cordiality . I trust the suggestion which " OBSKRYEU" has offered , will bear fruit . Fraternally yours , G . K . E .
GRAND LODGE AND BRO . STEVENS' MOTION .
To the Editor of the FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —Iu tho letter of " A P . G . CHAPLAIN , P . M ., P . Z ., P . M . W . S ., 32 ° , ' * under the above heading , in your impression of this date , I fancy I recognise the composition of my most pronounced opponent in respect of the formation of the Committee of inquiry into practices of Masonic Working .
If I am correct in this impression , tho cause I have at heart requires that I should meet him upon the new ground ho has chosen for his illogical arguments and misrepresentations . If I am mistaken , the subject matter of the letter nevertheless requires correction , whoever may be its author . In either case , I cannot imagine how any one can dosoribe the recent
action of Grand Lodge otherwise than as a change of mind without reasonable cause . In " one of the most crowded meetings " we have ever had , December 1869 , Grand Lodge affirmed the principle on motion made , and agreed to tho appointment of a Committee ; at its ensuing meeting it confirmed that resolution , and if there be any force at all in our " Begulations for tho Government of tho Craft , " and the words
at page 28 , — " If carried and confirmed at the next ensuing meeting of Grand Lodge it becomes a law , "—then I say that we cannot get away from tho fact that there t ' s a law which has not been revoked , and which a dignified and honourable body , such as Grand Lodge is , Bhould see either expunged altogether or fairly carried out . My motion in December last waa that " the Committee be now
appointed . " This was resolved upon , and nothing could have arisen , or rather , did arise , in the interval between then and the meeting of 3 rd March , which rendered the non-confirmation of the resolution other than the result of " pique " and party feeling . Such non-confirmation only defers to a future period the appointment of the Committee , in accordance with an existing law enacted
ten years ago . Does my " Grand " opponent desire it to be understood that the " comparatively small meetings" of Grand Lodge should be of less effect in respect of their deliberations than the most crowded meetings ? If so , what would become of some of our most useful Grand Lodge decisions ? Where is the logic of such an argument ?
Does ho really mean to charge me with " misrepresenting historical facts ? " If so , I beg to refer him , and all those others who have personally informed mo that my motion of December 1869 was not confirmed and made law , to the minutes of the Grand Lodge for the dates referred to . He and tboy will find that after confirmation of the resolution to appoint a Committee the appointment of such
Committee was olono deferred , and not the motion itself . That there may be no further misunderstanding on this point , I append an extract from the report of Grand Lodge meeting of the 2 nd March 1870 . After tho minutes of tho previous meeting had been confirmed , " Bro . Stevens having nominated certain brothren to form tho
Committee , & c , " Bro . Horace Lloyd , Q . C ., proposed an amendment , namoly , — ' Tliat the appointment of this Committee be deferred until the next meeting of the Qiand Lodge . ' Ho did so on two grounds—first , he gathered that , in tho opinion of those around him , too largo a number had been nominated to givo an efficient working
Committeea Committee which , it must bo remembered , would have to inquire , to investigate , and to report ; and secondly , because he thought it was the general opinion that tho subject had not been sufficiently considered to enable thoso present to recommend with precision thoso who should be nominated to servo on the proposed Committee . Hia own idea was that the Committee should be formed from among
a few eminent Freemasons to represent schools of opinion , and that the Grand Eegistrar , tho Grand Secretary , and the Chairman of the Board of General Purposes should be added to their number . Such a Committee , he ventured to think , would give a free and impartial report upon tho question , which would probably receive approval from
all quarters , and ho therefore ventured to hope that tho consideration of the matter of the election of the Committee would he postponed to the next meeting of Grand Lodge . "The amendment , viz ., 'That the question of the nomination of the Committee be deferred until next Grand Lodge , ' was put and carried . "
Is this a revocation of the law in the fulfilment of which tho proposed Committee was nominated ? Most decidedly , no . And therefore am I not right in urging the fact that one of two conraea must be adopted before Grand Lodge can be freed from the solemn obligation to observe its own enactments ? Either the absolute converse of the accepted motion should be as solemnly decreed as was the enactment itself , or its purport should be honourably carried into full effect .
I believe the author of the letter to which I'am replying has the very best opportunity for referring to the file of the Freemason , from which paper I extract the foregoing . How , then , can he be so disingenuous as to let it be inferred that the motion of December
1869 was rejected ? Whether it be agreeable to him or those he can influence , the fact is still ineradicable . Grand Lodge has made a law which it does not see fit to carry out ? Are others of its laws treated in like manner ? Bead through the Book of Constitutions , and observe !
Your correspondent says , " Had Bro . Stevens contented himself vuth asking for a Committeo of inquiry into irregularities , & c , few brothren would probably have objected . " What else have I asked
Correspondence.
for ? Tho exact words of the law made by Grand Lodge in 1869-70 aro as follows : — " That with a view to securing greater uniformity of working and observance of the ' same usagos and customs' throughout the several Lodges held under the authority of tho Grand Lodge of England , a Committee of Past Masters be appointed to inquire into the merits of
the respective systems of working now in practice , and to report to Grand Lodge thereon , with such recommendations as they may think necessary to prevent deviation from tho established mode , such deviations being , according to the Constitutions of Freemasonry , improper , and not to be justified or countenanced . " Is there one word in this which refers to ritual ? Why , then ,
should it be thrust upon me that I desire to interfere with "Ritualistic practices , " whioh may have a charm for some minds , although probably objectionable to others ? Some things may be to your correspondent " extremely interesting , " which to others may bo viewed with " horror and indignation , " and very possibly the Committee , when appointed in accordance with the law of Grand Lodge , may
not interfere with such details , whilst , nevertheless , reporting that some modification in respect thereof might advantageously be made . I am not alone in thinking it a very unfortunate thing that a dooision made , confirmed , and ro-affirmod by Grand Lodge can bo so obstructed as to practically make tho law-giver a law-breaker . I cannot , if I would , having regard to my convictions on this
subject , let tho matter rest in it 3 present phase . My future action must be governed by the surrounding circumstances of" the moment . It may be that I shall myself propose to Grand Lodge that the law it enacted in 1869-70 be absolutely cancelled . Until this be done , or the Committee appointed , we may " gild the pill" as much as wo please , but no other expression than that of " self-stultification " will
define the present inconsistency of Grand Lodge . For my own part , I can conscientiously affirm that I have fought tho battle for Uniformity of Working , or , as some prefer to call it , Unity of Essentials , fairly , and without misrepresentation or " falutin . " I have " pulled no wire , " nor have I " sacrificed truth and fair play at the shrine of party interest . " Can my opponents say as much ? No word of disrespect to Grand Lodge or Grand Lodge
Officers has ever emanated from me , and I challenge even ray most virulent opposer to put his finger on any written sentence of mine which is improper or un-Masonic . That I have given " blow for blow , " in an epistolary sense , I must perforce admit , but not ono ha 3 been delivered in a covert manner . And I am prepared to continue the fight , if necessary , and shall certainly do so upon the very slightest encouragement . The field of controversy is as open for myself as for others , and it is ono in which I delight to find argumentative exercise .
If tho matter is not kept well before the Craft until tho law ia revoked , or the Committee appointed , it will not be my fault . Yours faithfully and fraternally , " JAMES STEVENS ,
P . M ., P . Z ., P . M . W . S ., 18 ° . Clapham , S . W ., 13 th March 1880 .
MASONIC DESIGNATIONS . To the Editor of the FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —I notice the growing practice of prefixing novel appellations to the Masonic titles of distinguished brethren , e . g ., the Grand Treasnrer is frequently addressed as , and he is constantly being termed by your contemporary , tho " gallant "
Chairman , & c , & c . Is this to become Masonically universal ? Or , is it an innovation ? It would sound somewhat oddly to address Bro . Horvey ' s successor as the " gallant" Grand Secretary . One would have thought the Masonic titles of Worthy , Worsbipfnl , Very Worshipful , # c , sufficient for ordinary parlance or use . Is thia an outcome of the prevalent fashion— " want of uniformity ?" Yours truly and fraternally , CrrnER . *
That what appears in these columns is not only read hut carefully studied , must bo evident from a communication we have received within the last few days , in which we are asked to correct an error , for which we are not responsible , but which nevertheless crept into the list of Stewards' contributions at the last Festival of the
Benevolent Institution , It seems that Comp . Theophilus Hallett , whose list amounted to two hundred guineas , represented not only Chapter No . 174 , as described in our list of 14 th February , but also Lodge No . 781 ( Merchant Navy ) . Wo regret that it was impossible for us to have avoided
the omission , and it is with the greatest pleasure we take this our first opportunity of correcting an error which appears to have required nearly a month to discover . We can well understand that Lodge No . 781 should feel hurt that their help had received no recognition , and that while
they shared with Chapter No . 174 the credit of furnishing , by the hands of their joint Steward , one . of the most considerable three-figure contributions , the Chapter got all the
credit . We trust this sorrow will give place to a corresponding sense of joy when they read this small tribute wo now render to their practical benevolence , as illustr ? ted at the first of this year ' s Festivals .