-
Articles/Ads
Article QUARTERLY COMMUNICATION, JUNE 7. ← Page 4 of 7 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Quarterly Communication, June 7.
himself with the article brought forward , or attempt to defend it , after the conviction expressed by the W . Brother who commenced the discussion , that no one would even be beard in its support ? He ( Bvo . S . ) had taken down the words of the W . Brother , as they were so remarkable : The W . Brother said he was satisfied that if the attempt were made , the Grand Lodge would interfere , and prevent the expression of such an attack upon the Grand Master . The W . Brothertherefore ,
, who had previously reproved the use of such a threat , was perfectly correct in the application of his reproof . And under these circumstances he would most earnestly recommend Bro . Crucefix not to respond to tbe insidious attack that had been made upon him . Bro . Lee Stevens then begged the attention of the Grancl Lodge to two points in the address of the mover , which were inconsistent with the privileges of the Craft ; they had nothing to do with the motion itself , as a motion , —
upon which , however energetically and eloquently introduced , he ( Bro . S . ) should not vote , for or against . The W . Brother had spoken of the Grand Master as " the Masonic King , " another version of " the King of the Craft ; " but he would contend that this was not only gratuitously wrong , but absurd . It was a species of adulation that could not be acceptable to the Grand Master , and ought not to be permitted in Grand Lodge . By the Book of Constitutions the Grand Master was elected
annually ; it was not even an election for life , much less an office hereditary or royal : there was , in fact , nothing monarchical in the institutions of Freemasonry—the Grand Master was as much hound by the Book of Constitutions as the humblest member of the fraternity . The W . Brother ' s assumption that the Grand Master had a right to sum up on any question before the Grand Lodge , was equally erroneous ; he had
no such right . The Grand Master might , of course , speak on any question before the Grand Lodge ; and it was essential to the good government of the Craft that his opinion should be given upon every important subject that was mooted in Grand Lodge . Recently that privilege had certainly been carried beyond its proper limits . There seemed to be an increasing tendency on the part of the Grand Master to " sum up , " which , he would respectfully submit , should be
discontinued . By the Book of Constitutions the mover of an original resolution had accorded to him the privilege of a reply ; and of what value would that privilege be , if the Grand Master were allowed to have a rejoinder , and , if taking an opposite view of the question from that entertained by the mover , should set about demolishing every argument used in the reply ? Against these two doctrines of the mover , he , therefore , thus entered his protest .
Bro . HAVERS briefly supported the motion . He did not think the " Freemasons' Quarterly Review " was much read , and not therefore of importance ; but it was a low , vulgar , and abusive publication . The DEPUTY GRAND MASTER said it was stated in the " Freemasons ' Quarterly Review " that the work had been before the public fourteen years ; it would not bave continued so long if it hacl not paid a profit ; it was clearthereforeit must be sold and readperhaps not so much
, , , by the Craft as the general public , and there it was that mischief was to be apprehended from it , if untrue or libellous articles became circulated . He had had the honour of Dr . Crucefix ' s masonic acquaintance for many years , ancl certainly felt bound to observe that , from the publicity given to his name in the " Freemasons' Quarterly Review , " the brother was at least identified with that publication . Bro . VERNON had been entrusted with two addresses to the M . W .
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Quarterly Communication, June 7.
himself with the article brought forward , or attempt to defend it , after the conviction expressed by the W . Brother who commenced the discussion , that no one would even be beard in its support ? He ( Bvo . S . ) had taken down the words of the W . Brother , as they were so remarkable : The W . Brother said he was satisfied that if the attempt were made , the Grand Lodge would interfere , and prevent the expression of such an attack upon the Grand Master . The W . Brothertherefore ,
, who had previously reproved the use of such a threat , was perfectly correct in the application of his reproof . And under these circumstances he would most earnestly recommend Bro . Crucefix not to respond to tbe insidious attack that had been made upon him . Bro . Lee Stevens then begged the attention of the Grancl Lodge to two points in the address of the mover , which were inconsistent with the privileges of the Craft ; they had nothing to do with the motion itself , as a motion , —
upon which , however energetically and eloquently introduced , he ( Bro . S . ) should not vote , for or against . The W . Brother had spoken of the Grand Master as " the Masonic King , " another version of " the King of the Craft ; " but he would contend that this was not only gratuitously wrong , but absurd . It was a species of adulation that could not be acceptable to the Grand Master , and ought not to be permitted in Grand Lodge . By the Book of Constitutions the Grand Master was elected
annually ; it was not even an election for life , much less an office hereditary or royal : there was , in fact , nothing monarchical in the institutions of Freemasonry—the Grand Master was as much hound by the Book of Constitutions as the humblest member of the fraternity . The W . Brother ' s assumption that the Grand Master had a right to sum up on any question before the Grand Lodge , was equally erroneous ; he had
no such right . The Grand Master might , of course , speak on any question before the Grand Lodge ; and it was essential to the good government of the Craft that his opinion should be given upon every important subject that was mooted in Grand Lodge . Recently that privilege had certainly been carried beyond its proper limits . There seemed to be an increasing tendency on the part of the Grand Master to " sum up , " which , he would respectfully submit , should be
discontinued . By the Book of Constitutions the mover of an original resolution had accorded to him the privilege of a reply ; and of what value would that privilege be , if the Grand Master were allowed to have a rejoinder , and , if taking an opposite view of the question from that entertained by the mover , should set about demolishing every argument used in the reply ? Against these two doctrines of the mover , he , therefore , thus entered his protest .
Bro . HAVERS briefly supported the motion . He did not think the " Freemasons' Quarterly Review " was much read , and not therefore of importance ; but it was a low , vulgar , and abusive publication . The DEPUTY GRAND MASTER said it was stated in the " Freemasons ' Quarterly Review " that the work had been before the public fourteen years ; it would not bave continued so long if it hacl not paid a profit ; it was clearthereforeit must be sold and readperhaps not so much
, , , by the Craft as the general public , and there it was that mischief was to be apprehended from it , if untrue or libellous articles became circulated . He had had the honour of Dr . Crucefix ' s masonic acquaintance for many years , ancl certainly felt bound to observe that , from the publicity given to his name in the " Freemasons' Quarterly Review , " the brother was at least identified with that publication . Bro . VERNON had been entrusted with two addresses to the M . W .