-
Articles/Ads
Article MASONIC INTELLIGENCE. ← Page 5 of 27 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Masonic Intelligence.
York has been for many years , in fact and of right , an independent G . L ., invested with all the powers masonically inherent in such a body , among which is that of free legislation , within the limits of tho ancient landmarks and established usages of tho Order . It is further objected that these amendments are beyond those limits . This objection assumes , and those who propound it assort , an inherent , vested , and inalienable right , in every Past Master , of
every Lodge , to vote on every question , as members of G . L ; a franchise , as the objectors call it , possessed by Past Masters , and not subject to the control of G . L . No authority for such a doctrine is to he found in the history or principles of Freemasonry . There is no reason to believe that Past Masters , as such , ever had either vote or place in the old mother G . L . of York . They certainly
had no right of vote in the G . L . established in London in the early part of the last century , "bat place therein seems to have been allowed them at a later period , and it will be observed that a like courtesy is manifested in the amendments now in question . One of the two G . Lodges which afterwards co-existed in England saw fit to grant to Past Masters vote as well as place in G . L ., and of course the charters wdiich it granted ( among whicli is the New York charter ) were framed accordingly ; but the other , and not less distinguished of
those G . Lodges , did not see fit to confer the like privilege , and in it , accordingly , Past Masters remained incapable of vote down to the period of the union of those two G . Lodges . The present constitution of the United G . L . of England does indeed admit Past Masters to seat and vote in Grand Lodge , but does not recognise any original or indestructible right to what it grants ; on the contrary , it withdraws the privilege from each Past Master who ceases for twelve
months to be a member of any Lodge . In the numerous G . Lodges which , in so many parts of the globe , derive their existence , mediately or immediately , from England , the practice as to the admission of Past Masters to vote is various : . some admit them all , some none , and some with certain restrictions as to number and otherwise . Principle , as deduced from the usages of the earliest G . Lodges , is directly opposed to any claim of rig ht on the part of Past Masters
to vote therein . Equality of representation of Lodges in G . L . is one of the most distinct characteristics of rule and practice in old times , and that equality is evidently disturbed by the unlimited admission of Past Masters to vote , as rendering the number of votes practically possessed by each Lodge dependent on the accident of the number of its Past Masters . We think it clear that the right of Past Masters to vote in G . L .
wherever and so long as that right subsists , is due to ancl depends entirely upon the constitutions which grant such a privilege , and therefore is not inherent . The proposition that it is , in any sense ( as asserted by those who raise this objection ) vested , inalienable or
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Masonic Intelligence.
York has been for many years , in fact and of right , an independent G . L ., invested with all the powers masonically inherent in such a body , among which is that of free legislation , within the limits of tho ancient landmarks and established usages of tho Order . It is further objected that these amendments are beyond those limits . This objection assumes , and those who propound it assort , an inherent , vested , and inalienable right , in every Past Master , of
every Lodge , to vote on every question , as members of G . L ; a franchise , as the objectors call it , possessed by Past Masters , and not subject to the control of G . L . No authority for such a doctrine is to he found in the history or principles of Freemasonry . There is no reason to believe that Past Masters , as such , ever had either vote or place in the old mother G . L . of York . They certainly
had no right of vote in the G . L . established in London in the early part of the last century , "bat place therein seems to have been allowed them at a later period , and it will be observed that a like courtesy is manifested in the amendments now in question . One of the two G . Lodges which afterwards co-existed in England saw fit to grant to Past Masters vote as well as place in G . L ., and of course the charters wdiich it granted ( among whicli is the New York charter ) were framed accordingly ; but the other , and not less distinguished of
those G . Lodges , did not see fit to confer the like privilege , and in it , accordingly , Past Masters remained incapable of vote down to the period of the union of those two G . Lodges . The present constitution of the United G . L . of England does indeed admit Past Masters to seat and vote in Grand Lodge , but does not recognise any original or indestructible right to what it grants ; on the contrary , it withdraws the privilege from each Past Master who ceases for twelve
months to be a member of any Lodge . In the numerous G . Lodges which , in so many parts of the globe , derive their existence , mediately or immediately , from England , the practice as to the admission of Past Masters to vote is various : . some admit them all , some none , and some with certain restrictions as to number and otherwise . Principle , as deduced from the usages of the earliest G . Lodges , is directly opposed to any claim of rig ht on the part of Past Masters
to vote therein . Equality of representation of Lodges in G . L . is one of the most distinct characteristics of rule and practice in old times , and that equality is evidently disturbed by the unlimited admission of Past Masters to vote , as rendering the number of votes practically possessed by each Lodge dependent on the accident of the number of its Past Masters . We think it clear that the right of Past Masters to vote in G . L .
wherever and so long as that right subsists , is due to ancl depends entirely upon the constitutions which grant such a privilege , and therefore is not inherent . The proposition that it is , in any sense ( as asserted by those who raise this objection ) vested , inalienable or