-
Articles/Ads
Article QUARTERLY COMMUNICATION.—SEPTEMBER 2. ← Page 3 of 8 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Quarterly Communication.—September 2.
which no one seemed disposed to sustain , even by inference alone . He concluded by moving a resolution , by way of amendment , on the confirmation of the minutes , framed so as to correct the minutes in accordance with facts , which amendment being seconded , was put , ancl negatived . Bro . SANGSTER then rose to propose another amendment , but The GRAND MASTER said , that one amendment having been negativedit was not competent to a Brother to other .
, propose any Bro . SANGSTER contended that the rejection of one amendment did not take away the right to propose another ; upon the exercise of which right he should insist . The GRAND MASTER , after consulting with some ofhis Grand Officers , allowed the W . Brother to proceed * Bro . SANGSTER then said , that the amendment he had to propose was not in respect of any verbal inaccuracies in the minutesit was founded
, upon the principle of the decision come to at the last Grand Lodge . It was a very useful practice in Freemasonry that no vote at one Lodge was final until confirmed by the succeeding Lodge , and his amendment went to the effect of negativing what had been clone at the last Grand Lodge respecting the appeals . It was as
follows" Resolved , That so much of the minutes now read as related to the confirmation of the Report of the Board of General Purpores on the appeals of Brothers Crueefix ancl J . Lee Stevens , and the motions consequent thereon , be not confirmed . " Brother HENDERSON objected to the time of Grand Lodge being now occupied in discussing the question of appeal , which had been decided at the last Grand Lod when other matters of great importance were
ge , to be brought forward . f Bro . SANGSTER was equally anxious with the learned Brother not to take up the time of Grand Lodge , but it was because he felt that the question now before them was of paramount importance , he was bound to press his amendment . The vote to which he objected had created the greatest dissention and ill-will in Freemasonry ; it had driven away a Brother who was one of the best and most useful members of
the Order—he of course referred to Bro . Dr . Crueefix . And upon the non-confirmation of those minutes depended , in a great measure , the prosperity of the Craft . Bro . Sangster then said , that his first objection , ancl one that he deemed fatal to the minutes , was , that His Royal Highness , and not the Grand Lodge , had at the former meeting decided against the evidence on the hearing of the appeals . Now , with all respect to H . R . H ., he ( Bro . S . ) contended that H . R . H . had no greater
power to decide that question than any other individual Brother in Grand Lodge . That the Constitution having directed that the appeal should be to Grand Lodge , ancl not to the Grand Master , all questions of law or of the reception of evidence could only be decided by Grand Lodge , on motion for the purpose , and that H . R . H . sat in the chair as the Chancellor did in the House of Lords , for the purpose of keeping order , and not of deciding points which belonged to the whole body . Bro . HENDERSON argued that the Grand Master did not decide a point of law , but merely a question of order , by declaring that at the preceding
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Quarterly Communication.—September 2.
which no one seemed disposed to sustain , even by inference alone . He concluded by moving a resolution , by way of amendment , on the confirmation of the minutes , framed so as to correct the minutes in accordance with facts , which amendment being seconded , was put , ancl negatived . Bro . SANGSTER then rose to propose another amendment , but The GRAND MASTER said , that one amendment having been negativedit was not competent to a Brother to other .
, propose any Bro . SANGSTER contended that the rejection of one amendment did not take away the right to propose another ; upon the exercise of which right he should insist . The GRAND MASTER , after consulting with some ofhis Grand Officers , allowed the W . Brother to proceed * Bro . SANGSTER then said , that the amendment he had to propose was not in respect of any verbal inaccuracies in the minutesit was founded
, upon the principle of the decision come to at the last Grand Lodge . It was a very useful practice in Freemasonry that no vote at one Lodge was final until confirmed by the succeeding Lodge , and his amendment went to the effect of negativing what had been clone at the last Grand Lodge respecting the appeals . It was as
follows" Resolved , That so much of the minutes now read as related to the confirmation of the Report of the Board of General Purpores on the appeals of Brothers Crueefix ancl J . Lee Stevens , and the motions consequent thereon , be not confirmed . " Brother HENDERSON objected to the time of Grand Lodge being now occupied in discussing the question of appeal , which had been decided at the last Grand Lod when other matters of great importance were
ge , to be brought forward . f Bro . SANGSTER was equally anxious with the learned Brother not to take up the time of Grand Lodge , but it was because he felt that the question now before them was of paramount importance , he was bound to press his amendment . The vote to which he objected had created the greatest dissention and ill-will in Freemasonry ; it had driven away a Brother who was one of the best and most useful members of
the Order—he of course referred to Bro . Dr . Crueefix . And upon the non-confirmation of those minutes depended , in a great measure , the prosperity of the Craft . Bro . Sangster then said , that his first objection , ancl one that he deemed fatal to the minutes , was , that His Royal Highness , and not the Grand Lodge , had at the former meeting decided against the evidence on the hearing of the appeals . Now , with all respect to H . R . H ., he ( Bro . S . ) contended that H . R . H . had no greater
power to decide that question than any other individual Brother in Grand Lodge . That the Constitution having directed that the appeal should be to Grand Lodge , ancl not to the Grand Master , all questions of law or of the reception of evidence could only be decided by Grand Lodge , on motion for the purpose , and that H . R . H . sat in the chair as the Chancellor did in the House of Lords , for the purpose of keeping order , and not of deciding points which belonged to the whole body . Bro . HENDERSON argued that the Grand Master did not decide a point of law , but merely a question of order , by declaring that at the preceding