Status Of Past Masters.

STATUS OF PAST MASTERS .

To the Editor of the "Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — The ground is a good deal cleared by recent discussion , but still an immense amount of rubbish has to be carted away before we get at the facts of the case in their " naked simplicity . " We may dismiss , and contemptuously

dismiss , all these arguments " ad hominem which exist as regards the rights of Past Masters , & c . Past Masters ha-ve no rights except which accrue to them under the Constitutions " of thc Fraternity , for work done for and to a lodge . Let us remember this truth , for it in fact dominates the whole discussion . The idea started by Bro . Havers , encouraged by Bro .

Maclntyre , and reasserted by Bro . Letchworth , is quite new and strange to us aU , and will 1 feel ever be repugnant to the feelingsot lodges . Bro . Letchworth is , if I mistake not , a Past Master in mure than one ludge , though he probably is sofaronly Past Mastero / onelodge . He knows as well as I do , 1 feel fully sure from his remarks , that the proposal if carried to alter the old status of Past Alasters will be

destructive to the good feeling of lodges , and that the sooner it is given up the better . Practically his view coincides with mine as to the inadvisabihty of change , but he seems to hanker for a sort of recognition of Past Master's rank in lodges , which would be fatal , I am convinced , to the peace and prestige of lodges . Let me recall to his minil an illustration svhich often

occurs . A brother , a Grand Officer , joins a lodge : he is asked to go into the chair . What is the preliminary condition in all well constituted lodges , except in a case of special emergency , but that , however high his rank or long his services as Past Master , or even as Grand Officer , may have been , he should serve one of the Warden ' s

chairs . Is not the lodge right ? Surely it is ! And no one has a right to call himself Past Master of a lodge svho has not sat in tne Master ' s chair as Master of that lodge . Any other test of merit or rank svill be simply destructive alike to Masonic harmony , and Masonic unity . Fraternally yours , LEX .

To the Editor of the " Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — In viesv of the interesting controversy on this subject , I think it svould be well to have the positions clearly defined . i . lo take the case as settled by the last Special Grand Lodge , Past Masters joining a lodge svill rank junior to the Worshipful Master at the time of joining , but above subsequent Masters of the lodge .

2 . _ By V . W . Bro . Brownrigg ' s amendment , Past Masters joining a lodge would alsvays rank junior to Past Masters of the lodge they join . 3 . By present Book of Constitutions , Past Masters joining a lodge other than that in svhich they have passed the chair have no status whatever , unless a lodge should grant them a position to the left of the chair by courtesy . This , Bro . Havers says , has been done , and can be done ,

but svhich the Grand Registrar cannot say distinctly is lawful for a lodge to do . In other words , a brother to whom is attached the title of " Worshipful" —a title acknowledged by Grand Lodge and Provincial Grand Lodges , and svho always wears his levels on his apron as marks of distinction —must s > it belosv the mo > t junior member of the lodge he

joins who has no such honourable prefix nor badges , unless that lodge assumes the posver of giving a status , for svhich the Book of Constitutions gives no authority . If the joining brother be ambitious he seeks the chair , and displaces the brethren of the lodge for a year . Surely , Grand Lodge , in its svisdom , is right in putting an end to the existing state of affairs . —I remain , sir and brother , yours fraternally ,

THEOBALD RINGER , P . M . 1308 , Charity Representative 1533 E . Junior United Service Club , St . James ' s-square , S . W .

To the Editor of the " Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — A Mason ' s lodge is a Republic or Commonwealth , in svhich all are equal save that rank and dignity is accorded to the officers , so long as they hold office . The officers of a lodge are the W . M ., the ( . P . M ., the Wardens , tic . When a brother has served his year as I . P . M ., he ought to

retire again into his normal place , in the order of precedence in his lodge , that place being strictly determined by the date of his admission , or his raising to the third degree . Our difficulties as to the rank of joining Past Masters seem to me to arise from allowing a notion to grow up that the Past Masters of a lodge form a sort of fourth degree in Masonry . There is obviously respect and honour due to

those who have held responsible office , and they for ever retain certain privileges , but svhen they vacate the office they lose the rank . Somewhat analogous L the case of the Lird Chancellor in the House of Lords . An ex-Lord Chancellor will always command the respect due to one svho has served so high and important an ofiice , and he retains the privilege of receiving a pension , but he ranks among

his peers according to the date of his patent . There are many lodges in which only a moeity of the members have taken the Royal Arch Degree , and it would be as reasonable to claim that those brethren svho have taken the Royal Arch Degree should have precedence as to claim that those svho have passed the chair should have Precedence . The Royal Arch brother has his jewel , the ast

r Master has his levels on his apron ( and if he pleases a jesvel as svell ) to show svhat he is , and what he has done . If this principle svas clearly laid down no Past Master , whatever h . s age and labours for the craft , svould feel out 01 place in ioininir a new lodire : some of the verv first in

? \ of precedence would possibl y be worthy b etnren who had long been loved and esteemed by their fellows , but who had not cared for the burden of office , while names of those syho had passed the chair svould appear in all parts of the list of members . —Yours fraternally , P . M . OF A COUNTRY LODGE .

n To the Editor of the " Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — 1 am unable to agree svith Bro . E . Letchsvorth in awT L issui- -- * at a Past Mai * er holds n 0 rank in a lod £ re-In f" ' hi fihly approve of ihe whole tone of his letter . " . " ^ y humble opinion a Past Master holds a very distinguisi ed rank , and one moreover that entitles him to very defi""< - privileges in the mater of precedence , Grand Lodge membership , & c „ but the rank is indicative of and a result 5 er vices rendered , and should be otherwise unobtainable .

Status Of Past Masters.

But I wish to point out the phenomenal absurdity oi recent resolutions in Special Grand Lodge . It will be admitted that not the Grand Master , nut even Grand Lodge itself , is able by any resolution to appoint even a Tyler or Inner Guard of any private lodge , however humble , much less to appoint a Worshipful Master . And yet , by an ill considered resolu ion , they are about to appoint not one , but untold brethren , to all the benefits

ot an ollice svhich the svidest exertions of their powers svould not enable them to fill up . Grand Lodge says in effect to me , for instance , " I can't make the members ot Lodge No . admit you at all to iheir fellowship , or even to visit them , unless they so choose ; and if they do admit you I can ' t direct them to give you even the least of their offices ; but 1 svill order them to act as if you had rilled the very highest it is in their power to bestow ; and

although you are at present only known to your proposer and seconder , they shall at once grant you all the consideration and respect svhich they have voluntarily conferred on members of long standing , known to them for years , and who have probably worked through every office in the lodge . " Now , sir , at the present moment I am not discussing the legality ot this proceeding ; but 1 will in passing merely

express my firm conviction that this is an iiiierlercnce vvith the privileges ot private lodges , and therefore an obliteration of the landmarks , and fundamentally illegal . But 1 am concerned foi the present in showing its absurdity , and svill occupy , svith your permission , a little more space . Private lodges are distinct corporations , subordinate to thelawsof the Craft as settled in Grand Lodge . Boroughs are distinct corporations , subordinate to the laws of the

realm as settled in Parliament . Aldermen who have passed the chair are sometimes called "ex-Mayor . " Anex-Sfasor of Slocum-cum-Pugis removes to London , and after a time becomes an Alderman of the City . Having passed the chair in his own native town , he at once aspires to be titled " ex-Lord Mayor of London , " and Parliament ; decides that he is justified in his ambition ? What should we think of this ? Would he not be laughed at ? and svould not the

Corporation of the City be entitled to complain ? And again , svhy should our new rule stop at Past Masters ? A . B . svas a Prov . G . W . of Middlesex . In course of time he migrates to Yorkshire . Why should he lose his position ? Certainly nut ; in all fairness he must at once be acknowledged as P . P . G . W . of Yorkshire . We have a homely old proverb which , Masonically rendered , would read " What is sauce lor the Past Master is sauce

for the Prov . Grand Officer . " Nay ! let us diive the nail home . CD . was Grand Master at Timbuctoo . Business calls him to London Is he to lose his rank of Past Grand Master ? Decidedly not : in all fairness he must be a Past Grand Master of England and rank ( as we have no Past Grand Master ) next to the Pro Grand Master ; so that in the absence of the Earl of Carnarvon he svould take precedence of all our own officers and rule Grand Lodge .

As a small preliminary he svould have to join the English Constituiion ; but that is a mere detail . The argument is the same as that of our Past Master . He obtained his rank for services in his own province ( or lodge ) and must therelore Usurp it in his new province ( or lodgej . 1 he more you look at it the more absurd it appears . The whole reasoning is illogical , and in my opinion the proposed action of Grand Lodge is svorse—it is illegal and

unconstitutional . Plainly stated , the matter stands thus—svhatever privileges a brother has earned through his own svork he is emitted to retain . If he has filled ihe chair of a lodge his privileges are two in number—1 , to be called thenceforth Past Master of such a lodge , say , No . 1000 , and to svear Past Master's clothing ; 2 , to attend Grand Lodge . If he resigns No . 1000 he still remains a member of Grand

Lodge , provided he joins No . 500 , and he still remains Past Master of No . 1000 , although no longer a member . He therefore loses nothing ; but svhy on earth should he desire to be called what he is not , Past Master of 500 ? If , after the brethren of No . 500 have come to know and appreciate him , they choose to grant him honorary rank , that is a matter ior their consideration , and Grand Lodge might easily emposver them to do so ; but it has no ri ght svhatever to force them so to do . Even svithout this concession I

cannot see that joining Past Masters have any grievance j but if this concession svould be at all soothing to thtir feelings , I am inconsistent enough not to object to it from any rigid consideration of svhat is absolutely logical . At any rate , in such case the additional honour svould have some slight appearance ot having been merited , as it is to be presumed that the new lodge svould not grant it indiscriminately . —Apologising Ior the length of this letter , I am , dear sir and brother , yours fraternally , G . W . SPETH .

To the Editor ofthe "Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — In reading over thc correspondence you have published on this subject there are one or two points svhich strike me as requiring some further elucidation , and , at the risk of being thought tedious , I send you the follosving notes : ist . Bro . W . Nicholl , P . M . 317 fails to see "the

differ-, ence betsveen a Past Master svho has served the office of Master in a certain lodge and one svho has only joined the ludge . " He has evidently forgotten that every lodge has to send yearly to Grand Lodge , and in the provinces to Provincial Grand Lodge as well , a return of all Past Masters claiming tositand vote in Giandor Provincial Grand Lodge ,

as the case may be , stating the name and number of the lodge in which each brother so returned held the chair , with the date . It appears to me that this at once establishes two classes of Past Masters—the classes " of " and "in" a lodge , as these prepositions have now come to be used in this connection .

2 nd . Bro . Ralph Gooding asks three questions as to joining Past Masters . I cannot for a moment suppose that the new rule , if finally parsed , could have retrospective action . It would be contrary to the custom of the law of this country that it should , and it would be giving a bad precedent to pass a special resolution to give it retrospective effect . Further than this , it svould cause endless confusion in the

annual returns to Grand and Provincial Grand Lodge , which are made out in order of members' seniority on the lodge roll . Bro . Gooding ' s other two questions point out admirably some of the incongruous absurdities to svhich the new rule would inevitably lead . 3 rd . 1 svould like to , enquire if the so-called " status" of Past Masters is either a " status " or a " rank , " svhich latter

Status Of Past Masters.

word has has also been frequently made use of ? It certainly is a " degree , " and it seems to me that the holding of that degree confers a seat in Grand Lodge and Provincial Grand Lodge . This degree carries with it certain rights and certain duties . The rights are a scat in Grand Lodge and Provincial Grand Lodge ; the duties ( among others ) to subscribe to some lodge . The duties remaining unperformed , the rights are lost , but the degree remains . The

practice under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Scotland , which used to obtain ( even if it does not now ) , namely , ot giving tbe degree of Mjster in the chair to brethren who never actually held the chair of the lodge giving the degree , confirms tnis view . Such a Past Master has no rights and no duties . 4 th . The "degree" of Master in the chair , however , does carry with ita" rank , " but only for two years , namely .

the " rank" of Worshipful Master for one year , and tne " rank " of Immediate Past Masterfor the year following . After that time , however , it seems to me that the holder " of . the degree has "de jure" no " rank" at all ; but is , at thc same time , accorded by his b . ethren in his own lodge the ( it 1 may so call it ) brevet rank of Past Master , accompanied by a seat of honour in his lodge . He is also treated with the deference and respect due to one who has worked

hard for and deserved well of his lodge ; but he has no established position other than what his seniority on the lodge roll gives him ,- he is , in tact , only better than his breth ren by the degree of Master in the chair which he holds , ls it right that a brother so situated in his own lodge should have a seniority conferred on him by edict of Grand Lodge in any lodge he may be pleased to join ; above all , who , at the date of his joining , has not passed through the chair of

that lodge ? Sth . Many brethren svho have filled the chair of a lodge join another with the hope of ultimately occupying the chair of that other lodge . When a Worshipful Master elect is filling up his list of officers he naturally , I apprehend , gives some consideration to the seniority , as svell as the services of those who are candidates for the lowest office . If the nesv rule is passed , can the Worshipful Master elect offer the collar of Inner Guard or Steward to the latest joining Past

Master , who would be his senior ? In tlie best interests of the Craft , London and provincial alike , I hope Grand Lodge svill postpone the settlement of this question till December , so that every brother may be able to give the matter his careful and earnest consideration , and thus avoid the hasty approval of svhat I cannot but think a most dangerous innovation in our Constitutions , and one that must lead to far greater hardships than those svhich some of your correspondents complain about now , — I am , dear sir and brother , yours fraternally ,

S . M . M . C . O ., P . M . of a London and Provincial Lodge London , August 27 th .

To the Editor of the " Freemason , " Dear Sir and Brother , — I have read with great interest the correspondence in your columns , as svell as your leaderettes anent this subject , and svitti your permission I svill offer a lew remarks thereon . In the first place , as to Past Masters in or of a lodge . Until a few ycars since I certainly was not aware of such

a distinction , and I have searched for some allusion to it in the Book of Constitutions , but like Bro . Letchworth I have failed to find any . In my humble opinion the idea of it has originated in some London lodges for their especial purposes , for so far as 1 can ascertain it svas not heard of in country lodges until recently . Secondly , as to the amendment svhich svas passed being optional or compulsory . 1 have always understood that

in our Order sve had certain landmarks and regulations by svhich all lodges svorking under Grand Lodge have to be guided , and although sve cannot have uniformity in our ceremonies , still I tear that if some lodges adopted one law and other lodges another , we should destroy that unanimity of principle and adherence to order which are so essential in promoting the permanent union of our Institution .

Thirdly , as to rank of Past Master becoming too common—hence not of the same value . Considering that there are , say 1 goo lodges on the roll , and that each lidgehas to elect one W . M . every year , and no more , I do not see how the amendment as passed can either increase or reduce the number of Past Masters thus created . If a Past Master joins a hundred lodges he is only one individual , and can only have one vote in Grand Lodge .

Fourthly , as to the amendmtnt being likely to cause blackballing . As every joining brother , whether Past Master or not , must be proposed in open lodge , it is easy to avoid blackballing by not proposing a brother likely to be objectionable . Anyone reading your remarks svould think that Past Masters leaving one province and going to anotner svere in the habit of thrusting themselves upon the nearest lodge and getting proposed as joining members . My

experience is widely different . 1 have always found that svhen a Past Master goes to reside in a neighbourhood where a lodge is held he is pestered almost beyond human endurance to become a member , and frequently he , in order to please , joins the lodge . Now I think if lodges are so anxious to lay hold of the services of a Past Master they ought to take him as he is svith all his honours of rank , Sic . Tnis question cuts both svays . supposing an energetic and experienced

Past Master joins a lodge where the working is not so good as he is able to perform ; it is most probable lhat a certain number of the memoers svill desire to see him in the Worshipful Master ' s chair , and he being anxious to be a Past Mister of a lodge , and not in it , will very likely try his best to get elected to thc chair . This svould , beyond all doubt , cause a great amount of dissatisfaction amongst some part of the members , especially those svho have filled

the subordinate offices , as their progress svould be blocked for 12 months , and the consequence will be ( as 1 myself have seen ) a " stampede " twin that lodge and an application for a new warrant by the secedeis ; and svhat will follow as a result ? Why , that where there is ample scope for one lodge , two cannot thrive , and both must come to grief . Is it not better therefore to make joining Past

Masters of lodges and not in them . Fifthly , as to a Past Master who is a petitioner for a new lodge and nut taking the chair being a Past Master of that ludge . The case quoted by yuurcurrespondent " G . E . " iaavery common one . I knowseveralfLuiishinglodgeswhich svould not now be in existence had not experienced Past Masters taken the helm and steered them over svhat othersvisc svould have been unsurmountable difficulties . I svill