-
Articles/Ads
Article GRAND LODGE ← Page 4 of 9 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Grand Lodge
To this application the W . M . of Lodge No . 781 returned the following truly Masonic and constitutional reply : — " Hobart Town , 26 thNov . 1855 . " WoiiSHiPFuii Sir and Brotheii , —I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 21 st instant , in which you state that certain
Freemasons have applied to you to recommend their petition to the Grand Lodge for a warrant , and that they have requested you to grant them a dispensation to work in the meantime ; and in reply I beg to observe , that a ' reference-to the Book of Constitutions will distinctly point out the proper course to be observed in such cases ; and it is quite clear that no private Lodge has authority to grant dispensations .
" With reference to that part of yovir communication in which you state that a Lodge— ' Peace and Friendship '—has been working for five years without a warrant from the Grand Lodge , you do not state , but I presume , that they have been working under a dispensation , which is usually issued for two years , renewable at the pleasure of the Prov . G G . M M . If they failed for two years , renewable at the pleasure of the Prov . .. If they failed
in obtaining a renewal , it would , of course , he your duty to refuse to recognize them : but on the contrary , you are bound to do so if they have been acting without a dispensation , or , having originally a dispensation , but no renewal thereof , it is to be regretted that we were not informed of their irregular proceedings .
" I have submitted your letter to the Past Masters of this Lodge , and they quite concur with me in the opinion that you would not be justified in granting them a dispensation . —Believe me to remain , " Yours faithfully and fraternally , " John Taxbot Coram , " W . M . Tasmanian Union Lodge , No . 781 . " Rev . Bro . II . P . Cane , W . M . No . 901 . "
We would further ask how the two last Lodges were formed ; and whether they emanated from the only chartered Lodge then working in Launceston ? And we do so because the ll . W . D . Gr . M . makes it a charge against the Brethren of Hobart Town , who applied for two new charters , that the applications were not made by independent Masons , " but only by Brethren of No . 781— -plainly showing the
intention to split up the one Lodge into three to make a Province . And we are the more curious to learn this , inasmuch as in an earlier part of his address his lordship somewhat sneeringly , as it appeared to us , stated that the memorial read was from " Bro . Toby and several other Brethren resident in Hobart Town , many of whom , I understand , belong to Lodge No . 781 , but a great part of tvJwm are
not , as J am told , members of that Lodge , but belong to other bodies of Masons in that town" Now , the last-mentioned circumstance would be to us proof that there were other Masons than merely Bro . Toby and the Brethren of No . 781 who were dissatisfied with the
proceedings of Bro . Ewing ; whilst , with regard to the splitting up of one Lodge into three , we wish to be informed whether the same course was not pursued in Launeeston ? and , also whether the most legitimate course in obtaining a new charter , is not for it to be applied for by members of an existing Lodge ( and there was but one at Hobart Town ) ? At all events , no body of Masons could
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Grand Lodge
To this application the W . M . of Lodge No . 781 returned the following truly Masonic and constitutional reply : — " Hobart Town , 26 thNov . 1855 . " WoiiSHiPFuii Sir and Brotheii , —I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 21 st instant , in which you state that certain
Freemasons have applied to you to recommend their petition to the Grand Lodge for a warrant , and that they have requested you to grant them a dispensation to work in the meantime ; and in reply I beg to observe , that a ' reference-to the Book of Constitutions will distinctly point out the proper course to be observed in such cases ; and it is quite clear that no private Lodge has authority to grant dispensations .
" With reference to that part of yovir communication in which you state that a Lodge— ' Peace and Friendship '—has been working for five years without a warrant from the Grand Lodge , you do not state , but I presume , that they have been working under a dispensation , which is usually issued for two years , renewable at the pleasure of the Prov . G G . M M . If they failed for two years , renewable at the pleasure of the Prov . .. If they failed
in obtaining a renewal , it would , of course , he your duty to refuse to recognize them : but on the contrary , you are bound to do so if they have been acting without a dispensation , or , having originally a dispensation , but no renewal thereof , it is to be regretted that we were not informed of their irregular proceedings .
" I have submitted your letter to the Past Masters of this Lodge , and they quite concur with me in the opinion that you would not be justified in granting them a dispensation . —Believe me to remain , " Yours faithfully and fraternally , " John Taxbot Coram , " W . M . Tasmanian Union Lodge , No . 781 . " Rev . Bro . II . P . Cane , W . M . No . 901 . "
We would further ask how the two last Lodges were formed ; and whether they emanated from the only chartered Lodge then working in Launceston ? And we do so because the ll . W . D . Gr . M . makes it a charge against the Brethren of Hobart Town , who applied for two new charters , that the applications were not made by independent Masons , " but only by Brethren of No . 781— -plainly showing the
intention to split up the one Lodge into three to make a Province . And we are the more curious to learn this , inasmuch as in an earlier part of his address his lordship somewhat sneeringly , as it appeared to us , stated that the memorial read was from " Bro . Toby and several other Brethren resident in Hobart Town , many of whom , I understand , belong to Lodge No . 781 , but a great part of tvJwm are
not , as J am told , members of that Lodge , but belong to other bodies of Masons in that town" Now , the last-mentioned circumstance would be to us proof that there were other Masons than merely Bro . Toby and the Brethren of No . 781 who were dissatisfied with the
proceedings of Bro . Ewing ; whilst , with regard to the splitting up of one Lodge into three , we wish to be informed whether the same course was not pursued in Launeeston ? and , also whether the most legitimate course in obtaining a new charter , is not for it to be applied for by members of an existing Lodge ( and there was but one at Hobart Town ) ? At all events , no body of Masons could