-
Articles/Ads
Article MASONIC NOTES AND QUERIES. ← Page 3 of 3 Article MASONIC NOTES AND QUERIES. Page 3 of 3 Article CORRESPONDENCE. Page 1 of 3 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Masonic Notes And Queries.
THE RIGHTS OP VISITOES . Only because some remarks made in the Mar / azine for the 25 th May , relative to the " Rights of Visitors , " require a little examination do I again allude to the subject , and having at present no intention again to refer to tlie matter , it will be well , perhaps , to look at the letters respectively . Premisinghoweverthat
, , I shall not charge those Avho do uot agree Avith . the statements first propounded by Bro . Dr . Henry Hopkins Avith Avant of consideration , as surely in questioning any matter , the various disputants must each admit their liability to err , although not probably in either case ignorant , inconsiderate , or blind to facts .
Bro . A . 0 . Haye states that he writes only with regard to Scotland . That being the case , neither Dr . Hopkins nor myself hold any different vieivs to his OAA ' respecting the rights of visitors under the Grand Lodge of that country . We have Avritten only in regard to England , and hence do not touch
the general Masonic bearing of the point at issue . We maintain with " W . T . L . " ( whose letter I have perused with much satisfaction ) that a lodge under the English Constitution cannot legally exclude a visitor at any time betAveen the opening and closing .
Jn support of such a position , it can be proved 1 st . That tho Constitutions of this Grand Lodge nowhere denies the ri ght of visitors to visit a lodge at any time ( under its jurisdiction ) , but , on the contrary , confers that privilege on all regular , subscribing members of the Craft . ( See page SO , 32 sec ,
1867 ) . 2 nd . The decision ofthe Board of General Purposes respecting the complaint against a lodge at London for having refused admission to some brethren who Avere known to them , viz ., that it is the undoubted ri ght of every Mason Avho is well known and properly vouched for to visit any
lodge during the time it ia open for general Masonic business . 3 rd . The practice in England of visitors being present at the rpadhig of the minutes , and yet as well received generally as at any other time . 4 > . The custom of not recording in the minutes information which Avould he unsuitable for any thorough Mason to hear , or even for a " coAvau " to read , should the minute book be illegally in his possession .
( a ) I would remark that nothing contrary to the first decision has yet been submitted . ( 5 ) My friend Bro . J . H . M . Bairnsfather seeks to draw a distinction between general and particular business , and hence considers the reading of the minutes to be particular business . We could uot
possibly have an objection to this vieAV if the Constitutions and the Board of General Purposes drew any distinction between the various duties of the lodge , and stated clearly Avhen , and Avhen not , visitors were eligible to attend lodges , but no such line of demarcation is cirawn , and , consequently , we still ask ou Avhat authority Dr . Hopkins Avas excluded from the Loyalty Lodge , Guernsey .
_ ( c ) I have visited many lodges in England , and , since this question has been mooted , have made it a practice to consult others Avho luwe done so likewise , aud both their experience aud mine coincide . We visit each other ' s lodges , and are present from the opening to the closing , and hai-e always been Avelcomed in England in so doin g , so that , as far as my
Masonic Notes And Queries.
inquiries and experience have goue , English Masons endorse our Aaews . ( d ) The late Grand Master declared that " a Mason ' s lodge is a Mason ' s church ; and that no qualified brother could be legally refused admittance under auy circumstances , " and although uuworthy of being au expounderI aim ( at least ) at being a
, defender of so grand an idea . The late and muchlamented Bro . the Rev . Dr . Oliver said , in reference to this opinion of H . R . H . the Duke of Sussex , "This then is a landmark which ought to be reverenced . " ( e ) Of course in the discussion of auy private business of the lodgevisitors beforehand might be
, courteously asked to withdraw , and none entitled to the name of a Freemason would object to do so , but why such private matter should be inserted in the minute book to such an extent as to render it undesirable for visitors to be present at the reading thereof I am at a loss to see .
(/ ' ) There is just one circumstance I regret in this interesting enquiry , and that is the complaint made by a P . M . of Jersey , of some of my remarks as being " a contemptuous stricture , " and " gratuitous insulting comparison . ' The brother referred to has certainly
learnt me the lesson " which will be of use in the future , " viz ., to be more particular in explaining my ideas so as to avoid misconception . I really had no such intentions as those credited to me , and feel sorry that any brother Avould for a moment fancy I had . My remarks were merely to the effect that Bro . Dr . Hopkins had done more for the general good of the
Craft than several put together in the province referred to , and had caused some little jealousy thereby , in some quarters ; hence it seemed probable that this fact mi g ht account for his exclusion at the reading of the minutes . I do not say such Avas the case . Those Avho know me best will be aware that
my puny efforts on behalf of Masonry have never yet been conducted on the principle of doing harm ,, out z'ather good , to every member o £ the Craft , aud , therefore , I trust most sincerely that the P . M . of Jersey will withdraAV the objectionable phrases alluded toas I assure him on my honour as a Mason , that
, my observations were not intended to be either a " contemptuous stricture , " or a " gratuitous insulting comparison , " and I know my friends Avill bear me out . I apologise for occupying so much space . — W . J . HUGHAN .
Correspondence.
CORRESPONDENCE .
The " Editor is not responsible for the opinions expressed by Correspondents * RIGHTS OF VISITORS . TO TUB EDITOE OF THE EliEEMASO : ™ " MAGAZINE AlfD jrASOMTC MIEEOIi . DEAR SIR AND BEOTHEE . —I was in hopes that I had exhausted the subject , and should not haA'e to say anything more on the rights of visitors , & c . The
matter in dispute is UOAV fully set forth , and demands a decision from the Masonic authorities . Pray allow me space for a feAV lines , I trust the last on the subject from me . To begin with my esteemed friend , Bro . Haye : —I am hardly content to accept his word pariimlar instead oi general , in regard to the minutes . It appears to me that since the reading of them is as regular as the opening and closing of the lodge , it is part of the " general" business , for it Avould as a
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Masonic Notes And Queries.
THE RIGHTS OP VISITOES . Only because some remarks made in the Mar / azine for the 25 th May , relative to the " Rights of Visitors , " require a little examination do I again allude to the subject , and having at present no intention again to refer to tlie matter , it will be well , perhaps , to look at the letters respectively . Premisinghoweverthat
, , I shall not charge those Avho do uot agree Avith . the statements first propounded by Bro . Dr . Henry Hopkins Avith Avant of consideration , as surely in questioning any matter , the various disputants must each admit their liability to err , although not probably in either case ignorant , inconsiderate , or blind to facts .
Bro . A . 0 . Haye states that he writes only with regard to Scotland . That being the case , neither Dr . Hopkins nor myself hold any different vieivs to his OAA ' respecting the rights of visitors under the Grand Lodge of that country . We have Avritten only in regard to England , and hence do not touch
the general Masonic bearing of the point at issue . We maintain with " W . T . L . " ( whose letter I have perused with much satisfaction ) that a lodge under the English Constitution cannot legally exclude a visitor at any time betAveen the opening and closing .
Jn support of such a position , it can be proved 1 st . That tho Constitutions of this Grand Lodge nowhere denies the ri ght of visitors to visit a lodge at any time ( under its jurisdiction ) , but , on the contrary , confers that privilege on all regular , subscribing members of the Craft . ( See page SO , 32 sec ,
1867 ) . 2 nd . The decision ofthe Board of General Purposes respecting the complaint against a lodge at London for having refused admission to some brethren who Avere known to them , viz ., that it is the undoubted ri ght of every Mason Avho is well known and properly vouched for to visit any
lodge during the time it ia open for general Masonic business . 3 rd . The practice in England of visitors being present at the rpadhig of the minutes , and yet as well received generally as at any other time . 4 > . The custom of not recording in the minutes information which Avould he unsuitable for any thorough Mason to hear , or even for a " coAvau " to read , should the minute book be illegally in his possession .
( a ) I would remark that nothing contrary to the first decision has yet been submitted . ( 5 ) My friend Bro . J . H . M . Bairnsfather seeks to draw a distinction between general and particular business , and hence considers the reading of the minutes to be particular business . We could uot
possibly have an objection to this vieAV if the Constitutions and the Board of General Purposes drew any distinction between the various duties of the lodge , and stated clearly Avhen , and Avhen not , visitors were eligible to attend lodges , but no such line of demarcation is cirawn , and , consequently , we still ask ou Avhat authority Dr . Hopkins Avas excluded from the Loyalty Lodge , Guernsey .
_ ( c ) I have visited many lodges in England , and , since this question has been mooted , have made it a practice to consult others Avho luwe done so likewise , aud both their experience aud mine coincide . We visit each other ' s lodges , and are present from the opening to the closing , and hai-e always been Avelcomed in England in so doin g , so that , as far as my
Masonic Notes And Queries.
inquiries and experience have goue , English Masons endorse our Aaews . ( d ) The late Grand Master declared that " a Mason ' s lodge is a Mason ' s church ; and that no qualified brother could be legally refused admittance under auy circumstances , " and although uuworthy of being au expounderI aim ( at least ) at being a
, defender of so grand an idea . The late and muchlamented Bro . the Rev . Dr . Oliver said , in reference to this opinion of H . R . H . the Duke of Sussex , "This then is a landmark which ought to be reverenced . " ( e ) Of course in the discussion of auy private business of the lodgevisitors beforehand might be
, courteously asked to withdraw , and none entitled to the name of a Freemason would object to do so , but why such private matter should be inserted in the minute book to such an extent as to render it undesirable for visitors to be present at the reading thereof I am at a loss to see .
(/ ' ) There is just one circumstance I regret in this interesting enquiry , and that is the complaint made by a P . M . of Jersey , of some of my remarks as being " a contemptuous stricture , " and " gratuitous insulting comparison . ' The brother referred to has certainly
learnt me the lesson " which will be of use in the future , " viz ., to be more particular in explaining my ideas so as to avoid misconception . I really had no such intentions as those credited to me , and feel sorry that any brother Avould for a moment fancy I had . My remarks were merely to the effect that Bro . Dr . Hopkins had done more for the general good of the
Craft than several put together in the province referred to , and had caused some little jealousy thereby , in some quarters ; hence it seemed probable that this fact mi g ht account for his exclusion at the reading of the minutes . I do not say such Avas the case . Those Avho know me best will be aware that
my puny efforts on behalf of Masonry have never yet been conducted on the principle of doing harm ,, out z'ather good , to every member o £ the Craft , aud , therefore , I trust most sincerely that the P . M . of Jersey will withdraAV the objectionable phrases alluded toas I assure him on my honour as a Mason , that
, my observations were not intended to be either a " contemptuous stricture , " or a " gratuitous insulting comparison , " and I know my friends Avill bear me out . I apologise for occupying so much space . — W . J . HUGHAN .
Correspondence.
CORRESPONDENCE .
The " Editor is not responsible for the opinions expressed by Correspondents * RIGHTS OF VISITORS . TO TUB EDITOE OF THE EliEEMASO : ™ " MAGAZINE AlfD jrASOMTC MIEEOIi . DEAR SIR AND BEOTHEE . —I was in hopes that I had exhausted the subject , and should not haA'e to say anything more on the rights of visitors , & c . The
matter in dispute is UOAV fully set forth , and demands a decision from the Masonic authorities . Pray allow me space for a feAV lines , I trust the last on the subject from me . To begin with my esteemed friend , Bro . Haye : —I am hardly content to accept his word pariimlar instead oi general , in regard to the minutes . It appears to me that since the reading of them is as regular as the opening and closing of the lodge , it is part of the " general" business , for it Avould as a