-
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.
tion of the subjects embraced in your communication . At the outset , however , £ must observe , without wishing or intending to indulge in language tending to an interruption of that friendly feeling which has always distinguished our personal , as separate from our official , intercourse—that I claim just grounds for
complaint ofthe tone and style of your letter , more especially as it is but too evident that it was penned with a view to publicity . Tou justify this publicity on the ground that " your ( my ) proceedings have been published . " Now , let me observe that no " proceedings" of mine have been publishedbut merely an
, account ofthe proceedings at the last meeting of the Grand Lodge of Mark Masters , which , as the report of what look place at a meeting of a , public body , may fairly be taken and treated as public property ; whereas your letter to me is described by yourself as written " not officiall y , nor by authority , but merely as a
member of the Order . " On receipt of yours , with announcement of your determination to publish , I did not object to or in any way deprecate your purpose , because I would not take any step which might lead you or others to fear I shrank from a public discussion of the question at issue , but I nevertheless reserve to
myself the ri ght of entertaining my own opinion as to the propriety of the course you have thought proper to pursue . The strong point evidently sought to be maintained in your letter is the " illegality" of the body on whose behalf I have written to you , and hardly less prominently , to evidence your condescension in consenting to hold communication with that body , which , indeed , you say you consent to do , only from the " great respect you entertain for me
personally . " Now the existence of your views on both these matters I . have been previously acquainted with , and I do not hesitate to say that your manifestation of hostilit y to this Mark Grand Lodge somewhat diminishes the pleasure I feel at the possession of your personal regard , while the fact of the latter
considerabl y enhances the regret I have for the former . But on what ; do you base your ever-recurring statements as to the "spurious , " "illegal , " " unrecognised' ' body " styling- itself the Grand Lodge of Mark Masters ? " Simply on your own ideas , and because you will persist in ignoring precedentdisregarding
, analogy , and despising the teachings of historv . One would reall y believe that the Masonic degree worked under this Grand Lodge was itself a " spurious , " an " illegal" degree , and it may be so regarded by the Masonic authorities in this ' country with whose hostility to this Grand Lodge I find fault on very different
grounds to those of my complaints against the Scottish authorities . In this country the ' degree itself is unacknowled ged , just as in Scotland the Grand Lodgo does not acknowled ge the Royal Arch degree—a degree , by the way , of modern ori gin as compared with the Mark , and reall y having no connection with '
genuine Craft Masonry . But in Scotland , the Mark degree is universally recognised ; and by what logical or legal process you arrive at the conclusion that it is the duty of the head of the Mark degree in Scotland to maintain a position of antagonism to the head of the Mark degree in England is to me a Masonic
mystery infinitely more perplexing than those considered " celestial" by Bro . Melville . Because , you say , " you are unrecognised . " This I admit I do know as Avell as you . Well , are not the Kni ghts Templar
Correspondence.
and the Ancient and Accepted Rite " unrecognised ?" No ; you say here is the difference . There are in other countries Grand Conclaves and Grand Councils , but in no other country , save England , will you find a Grand Lodge of Mark Masters . True again ; and more fortunate for those Orders , the more unfortunate
for this degree . This , however , being the case , and all attempts to induce the Graud Lodge of England to combine the Mark Degree with its system , having failed , what more proper or Masonic course than to provide an organisation for the protection and preservation of a
degree valued everywhere else , and what more natural expectation than that the authorities of other jurisdictions by whom the Degree is held to be of importance would have encouraged , assisted , and sustained a legitimately constituted government in its praiseworthy attempt . AgainI do know as well as you
, that the Grand Lodge of Mark Masters is " selfconstituted , " in this we are no better and no worse than other supreme bodies which can boast of an " origin , " and amongst them , I apprehend , is included the Supreme Royal Arch Chapter of Scotland . That this Grand Lodge is a " spurious" bodyI do not
, know as well as you , but am prepared to prove its constitutional and legal status against any assailant . Tou further complain of " my rushing into print " " instead of writing to you privately , asking for
explanation which in that way I would have received . " On this I simply observe that your memorandum to Sydney was brought under my notice officially , submitted by me to our General Board officially , and by them made known to Grand Lodge officially—that I wrote you officially , and that you have acknowledged
my communication officially , and that I do not understand writing to anyone privately for information which he could only afford from official knowledge . On the serious and important subject of the issue of Mark warrants for Scotland and Ireland by this Grand LodgeI would prefer to say as little as
, possible . No " threat" of the kind lias been made , but discretionary powers have been conferred . Bitterly shall I regret the arrival of the day when a lamentable want of proper understanding shall culminate in unconcealed animosity , and should such a time arriveI . do not think this Grand Lodge will
, prove to be the aggressor . But advocate as I am for peace—determined to do all in my humble power to maintain it , even at personal sacrifice—I cannot but feel that a body so numerously and iufkientially composed as this , has to maintain its dignity , to uphold its reputationand to support its members in the
, exercise of their constitutional functions . No more bitter attacks could have been directed against us had we asserted our right to initiate the outside world , than those we have been subjected to in our honest efforts in the cause of legitimate Masonry . If persisted in , the consequences will not be chargeable
upon us . Remember , in all I have here written , I am onl y expressing myself as au individual , not as one holding official position or charged with official instructions . In justice to myself , after the course you have adopted , I send copy of this letter for publication . Tours fraternally , FEEDEEICK ; BINCKES .
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Correspondence.
tion of the subjects embraced in your communication . At the outset , however , £ must observe , without wishing or intending to indulge in language tending to an interruption of that friendly feeling which has always distinguished our personal , as separate from our official , intercourse—that I claim just grounds for
complaint ofthe tone and style of your letter , more especially as it is but too evident that it was penned with a view to publicity . Tou justify this publicity on the ground that " your ( my ) proceedings have been published . " Now , let me observe that no " proceedings" of mine have been publishedbut merely an
, account ofthe proceedings at the last meeting of the Grand Lodge of Mark Masters , which , as the report of what look place at a meeting of a , public body , may fairly be taken and treated as public property ; whereas your letter to me is described by yourself as written " not officiall y , nor by authority , but merely as a
member of the Order . " On receipt of yours , with announcement of your determination to publish , I did not object to or in any way deprecate your purpose , because I would not take any step which might lead you or others to fear I shrank from a public discussion of the question at issue , but I nevertheless reserve to
myself the ri ght of entertaining my own opinion as to the propriety of the course you have thought proper to pursue . The strong point evidently sought to be maintained in your letter is the " illegality" of the body on whose behalf I have written to you , and hardly less prominently , to evidence your condescension in consenting to hold communication with that body , which , indeed , you say you consent to do , only from the " great respect you entertain for me
personally . " Now the existence of your views on both these matters I . have been previously acquainted with , and I do not hesitate to say that your manifestation of hostilit y to this Mark Grand Lodge somewhat diminishes the pleasure I feel at the possession of your personal regard , while the fact of the latter
considerabl y enhances the regret I have for the former . But on what ; do you base your ever-recurring statements as to the "spurious , " "illegal , " " unrecognised' ' body " styling- itself the Grand Lodge of Mark Masters ? " Simply on your own ideas , and because you will persist in ignoring precedentdisregarding
, analogy , and despising the teachings of historv . One would reall y believe that the Masonic degree worked under this Grand Lodge was itself a " spurious , " an " illegal" degree , and it may be so regarded by the Masonic authorities in this ' country with whose hostility to this Grand Lodge I find fault on very different
grounds to those of my complaints against the Scottish authorities . In this country the ' degree itself is unacknowled ged , just as in Scotland the Grand Lodgo does not acknowled ge the Royal Arch degree—a degree , by the way , of modern ori gin as compared with the Mark , and reall y having no connection with '
genuine Craft Masonry . But in Scotland , the Mark degree is universally recognised ; and by what logical or legal process you arrive at the conclusion that it is the duty of the head of the Mark degree in Scotland to maintain a position of antagonism to the head of the Mark degree in England is to me a Masonic
mystery infinitely more perplexing than those considered " celestial" by Bro . Melville . Because , you say , " you are unrecognised . " This I admit I do know as Avell as you . Well , are not the Kni ghts Templar
Correspondence.
and the Ancient and Accepted Rite " unrecognised ?" No ; you say here is the difference . There are in other countries Grand Conclaves and Grand Councils , but in no other country , save England , will you find a Grand Lodge of Mark Masters . True again ; and more fortunate for those Orders , the more unfortunate
for this degree . This , however , being the case , and all attempts to induce the Graud Lodge of England to combine the Mark Degree with its system , having failed , what more proper or Masonic course than to provide an organisation for the protection and preservation of a
degree valued everywhere else , and what more natural expectation than that the authorities of other jurisdictions by whom the Degree is held to be of importance would have encouraged , assisted , and sustained a legitimately constituted government in its praiseworthy attempt . AgainI do know as well as you
, that the Grand Lodge of Mark Masters is " selfconstituted , " in this we are no better and no worse than other supreme bodies which can boast of an " origin , " and amongst them , I apprehend , is included the Supreme Royal Arch Chapter of Scotland . That this Grand Lodge is a " spurious" bodyI do not
, know as well as you , but am prepared to prove its constitutional and legal status against any assailant . Tou further complain of " my rushing into print " " instead of writing to you privately , asking for
explanation which in that way I would have received . " On this I simply observe that your memorandum to Sydney was brought under my notice officially , submitted by me to our General Board officially , and by them made known to Grand Lodge officially—that I wrote you officially , and that you have acknowledged
my communication officially , and that I do not understand writing to anyone privately for information which he could only afford from official knowledge . On the serious and important subject of the issue of Mark warrants for Scotland and Ireland by this Grand LodgeI would prefer to say as little as
, possible . No " threat" of the kind lias been made , but discretionary powers have been conferred . Bitterly shall I regret the arrival of the day when a lamentable want of proper understanding shall culminate in unconcealed animosity , and should such a time arriveI . do not think this Grand Lodge will
, prove to be the aggressor . But advocate as I am for peace—determined to do all in my humble power to maintain it , even at personal sacrifice—I cannot but feel that a body so numerously and iufkientially composed as this , has to maintain its dignity , to uphold its reputationand to support its members in the
, exercise of their constitutional functions . No more bitter attacks could have been directed against us had we asserted our right to initiate the outside world , than those we have been subjected to in our honest efforts in the cause of legitimate Masonry . If persisted in , the consequences will not be chargeable
upon us . Remember , in all I have here written , I am onl y expressing myself as au individual , not as one holding official position or charged with official instructions . In justice to myself , after the course you have adopted , I send copy of this letter for publication . Tours fraternally , FEEDEEICK ; BINCKES .