-
Articles/Ads
Article TO THE EDITOR. ← Page 2 of 3 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
To The Editor.
niorial have ruled that it is "arbitrary , unjust ami tyrannical , " " unnecessary and uncalled-for , " that " it would tend to alienate the allegiance of the provinces , " and that it would tax the provincial Masons 100 per cent ., and the London Masons onl y .-50 per cent . But , Sir and Brother , while I decline to avail myself of the power given me by the law , to renew my motion as often as I may think it needful so to doI owe it to myself to repudiate charge urged against the
, every motion . I deny the per centage system—the present dues are EQUAL . The whole of the London dues being payable to the Grand Lodge ; onehalf of the provincial dues being payable to the Grand Lodge—the other half to their own respective Provincial Grand Lodges , and for the better advantage of the Country Masons , this is shown by Art . 4 ., p . 53 , of the Book of Constitutions . Let quibblers do their worst , they will not easily controvert a truthful fact . The present dues being equal—what must
be thought of my intention to overtax the country Brethren ? It is scarcely a twelvemonth since the Lodge of Benevolence was regularly reported to have been in arrear with the Grand Treasurer . How did this . occur ? Simply because the liberality of the Grand Lodge had appropriated 400 / . per annum from the Benevolent Fund to the Masonic Annuity Fund , ancl because the casual petitions had greatly increased . Finding tbe evil consequences to increaseI put my notice of motion on
, . the paper , where it remained for an unusual period . Of this I do not complain—a suitor must , even in Masonic Law , abide his time ; but during this time what occurred ? The Fund of Benevolence was relieved of all charges thereon , which were properly transferred to the Board of General Purposes ; and , further , the monthly committees became so
economical in their donations , that at length the Grand Treasurer ' s account has shewn a balance on the other side . So far so good ; but time may prove , as 1 fear it will , that Masonic economy may be carried too far , and that the petitioner at the Board of Benevolence may change his character , from that of an honest Brother claiming his just dues , rendered necessary by calamity and misfortune , into that of a suppliant before the guardians of a union ( not Masonic ) . I write advisedly ; I
have very seldom been selected to preside at the Board of Benevolence , but 1 have very often attended by right of my position , and have frequently witnessed what I now blush to remember . Besides relieving the Fund of Benevolence , and restoring its healthiness , I felt , in common with others , that it was time for us to become unselfish , and to prove that in the persons of our mothers , wives , and daughterswe reverenced the great blessing bestowed on us bHeaven ;
, y and that to leave them after our death in total poverty , to the mere sympathy of the popular world , might expose our Order , not altogether unjustly , to the taunt of being " a mockery , a delusion , and a snare . " I confess ' with "joy and exultation , " that , as a profession , Freemasonry distances immeasurably all other moral creeds , ancl because it does so , perhaps many of its members practice but indifferently what they profess- —for in profession they are most entravagant .
The rejection of the motion has deferred the hopes of the widows of Masons , and on this point I beg to draw your attention to the fact , that from none of the memorials nor from any of the debaters , noble , gentle , or simple , that opposed the motion , did one word of sympathy for the widow escape ! T have stated the hope ofthe widow as only deferred , because it is my intention to frame a new motion altogether . I now am told that there is VOL . in . ;; ^
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
To The Editor.
niorial have ruled that it is "arbitrary , unjust ami tyrannical , " " unnecessary and uncalled-for , " that " it would tend to alienate the allegiance of the provinces , " and that it would tax the provincial Masons 100 per cent ., and the London Masons onl y .-50 per cent . But , Sir and Brother , while I decline to avail myself of the power given me by the law , to renew my motion as often as I may think it needful so to doI owe it to myself to repudiate charge urged against the
, every motion . I deny the per centage system—the present dues are EQUAL . The whole of the London dues being payable to the Grand Lodge ; onehalf of the provincial dues being payable to the Grand Lodge—the other half to their own respective Provincial Grand Lodges , and for the better advantage of the Country Masons , this is shown by Art . 4 ., p . 53 , of the Book of Constitutions . Let quibblers do their worst , they will not easily controvert a truthful fact . The present dues being equal—what must
be thought of my intention to overtax the country Brethren ? It is scarcely a twelvemonth since the Lodge of Benevolence was regularly reported to have been in arrear with the Grand Treasurer . How did this . occur ? Simply because the liberality of the Grand Lodge had appropriated 400 / . per annum from the Benevolent Fund to the Masonic Annuity Fund , ancl because the casual petitions had greatly increased . Finding tbe evil consequences to increaseI put my notice of motion on
, . the paper , where it remained for an unusual period . Of this I do not complain—a suitor must , even in Masonic Law , abide his time ; but during this time what occurred ? The Fund of Benevolence was relieved of all charges thereon , which were properly transferred to the Board of General Purposes ; and , further , the monthly committees became so
economical in their donations , that at length the Grand Treasurer ' s account has shewn a balance on the other side . So far so good ; but time may prove , as 1 fear it will , that Masonic economy may be carried too far , and that the petitioner at the Board of Benevolence may change his character , from that of an honest Brother claiming his just dues , rendered necessary by calamity and misfortune , into that of a suppliant before the guardians of a union ( not Masonic ) . I write advisedly ; I
have very seldom been selected to preside at the Board of Benevolence , but 1 have very often attended by right of my position , and have frequently witnessed what I now blush to remember . Besides relieving the Fund of Benevolence , and restoring its healthiness , I felt , in common with others , that it was time for us to become unselfish , and to prove that in the persons of our mothers , wives , and daughterswe reverenced the great blessing bestowed on us bHeaven ;
, y and that to leave them after our death in total poverty , to the mere sympathy of the popular world , might expose our Order , not altogether unjustly , to the taunt of being " a mockery , a delusion , and a snare . " I confess ' with "joy and exultation , " that , as a profession , Freemasonry distances immeasurably all other moral creeds , ancl because it does so , perhaps many of its members practice but indifferently what they profess- —for in profession they are most entravagant .
The rejection of the motion has deferred the hopes of the widows of Masons , and on this point I beg to draw your attention to the fact , that from none of the memorials nor from any of the debaters , noble , gentle , or simple , that opposed the motion , did one word of sympathy for the widow escape ! T have stated the hope ofthe widow as only deferred , because it is my intention to frame a new motion altogether . I now am told that there is VOL . in . ;; ^