Difference between revisions of "MassachusettsEdicts MFM1851 1855"

Revision as of 02:59, 22 October 2012

ADVICE FROM MOORE'S FREEMASONS' MONTHLY MAGAZINE

Prior to 1875, a considerable amount of Masonic jurisprudence was based on the advice and direction published in The Freemasons' Monthly Magazine, published in Boston and edited by one of the foremost Masonic authorities of the time, Rt. Wor. Charles W. Moore. While not established as edicts or rulings by Grand Masters, they were consequential in the establishment of precedents and contributed to the decisions made in later years.

Comments and views in the publication were often lengthy, but were generally based on sound reasoning that the author provided in response to inquiries from many Grand Jurisdictions.

1852

Making Masons At Sight

This discussion was subsequent to the removal of the Grand Master of California, who asserted that he could make Masons at sight independent of particular Lodges.

From Vol. XII, No. 2, p. 33:

The apparent primary cause of the unfortunate difficulty that has recently arisen among our Brethren in California, may be traced directly to the opinion which seems to be entertained by their Grand Master, that by virtue of his place, he is invested with plenary power to " Masons at sight," without regard to circumstances or conditions. In other and more intelligible words, that as Grand Master, he is privileged to make Masons of anybody, anywhere, and in any manner, that shall suit his convenience, his whims, or his prejudices. This is his theory. Its practical illustration is to be seen in his acts.

If the principle he has thus boldly set up be true, it involves considerations and consequences of momentous importance to the future peace and prosperity of our Institution in this country. In any light in which we can view it, the doctrine is lo our mind startling in its aspects, and portentous in its results. It is either true, and the Grand Master is above the law; make or it is not true, and he is but the executive of the law; to which, in common with all his Brethren, he is amenable. He is either the centre in which all power is lodged, and from which all authority emanates; or he is amenable to a power higher than himself. He is either the embodiment of a despotism ; or he is the representative of a free and intelligent constituency. He is either above the law, or under the law. If above the law, "to himself alone, he is accountable;" and in the eye of the law, "can do no wrong." If under the law, he is amenable to the law, and may do great wrong. Which is true?

It is our misfortune to differ from some intelligent Brethren who have favored the Fraternity with their opinions on this subject. That Grand Masters possess the power to make, or authorize others to " make Masons at sight," under proper circumstances and limitations, we suppose to be a proposition that does not admit of a negation. But that they may so make Masons without regard to conditions or limitations, is more than we are at present prepared to concede. As early as 1663, under the Grand Mastership of the Earl of St. Albans, it was decreed, as a permanent regulation, "that no person, of what degree soever, shall be accepted a Freemason, unless in a regular Lodge (a regular lodge is one formed in accordance with the authorized usage or prescribed regulations of the supreme authority, at the time of its organization), whereof one to be Master or a Warden, in that division (or District) where such Lodge is kept, (regularly held), and another to be a Craftsman in Masonry." Prior to this period, little regard was paid to the manner of holding Lodges or the making of Masons. They were then made "at sight," anywhere and by any competent Master or Warden. The Grand Master could then make Masons, as claimed by our Brother in California, "at will," and without regard to preliminaries or restrictions. It was not a prerogative of his office. It was a right or privilege enjoyed equally by his Brethren of inferior rank. The foregoing regulation was adopted. The right of making Masons at sight remained intact. But "no person, of what degree soever," whether prince or peasant, could be "accepted a Freemason, unless in a regular Lodge" formed and organized in the manner prescribed. This was then the condition and limitation.

At the reorganization of Masonry in year 1717, so much of the regulation of 1663, as defines what constitutes a "regular Lodge," was taken into a new draft, as follows :—

"The privilege of assembling as Masons, which has been hitherto unlimited, ■hall be vested in certain Lodges or assemblies of Masons, convened in certain places; and every Lodge to be hereafter convened, except the four old Lodges at this time existing, shall be legally authorized to act by warrant from the Grand Master for the time being, granted to certain individuals by petition, with the content and approbation of the Grand Lodge in communication; and without such warrant no Lodge shall be hereafter deemed regular or constitutional."

The adoption of this regulation did not repeal or impair that part of the regulation of 1663, which declares that "no person, of what degree soever, shall be accepted a Freemason, except in a regular Lodge." That remained as it originally stood, and as it stands now. It was in the nature of an explanatory regulation, and defined what should thereafter constitute a regular Lodge; and in which alone Masons could be lawfully made.

But there was yet another element wanted in order to afford full protection to the Lodges against the danger to which they were exposed under the practice of making Masons at sight; for there was then no rule on the subjeot. This was supplied by the adoption of the following regulation in 175S :—

"That no Lodge thall ever make a Mason without due inquiry into his character; neither shall any Lodge be permitted to make and raise the same Brother, at one and the same meeting, without a dispensation from the Grand Master, which, on very particular occasions only, may be requested."

As the Lodges could not "make due inquiry into the character" of a candidate until his name had been proposed, this regulation has been interpreted by the Grand Lodge of England to mean, that "no person shall be made a Mason without a regular proposition at one Lodge, and & ballot at the next regular stated Lodge; nor until his name, addition or profession, and place of abode, shall have been sent to all the members, in the summons." And the interpretation has received the sanction and concurrence of all regular Grand Lodges that have since been established.

In the manner here pointed out—and in this way only—can any "person, of what degree soever," be lawfully and regularly " accepted a Freemason." And at this point terminated, we trust forever, the loose and injudicious practice of making Masons at sight,—at least, so far as respects any other than Grand Lodges. Were they authorized to continue it ? This question is not without its difficulties. The reliable Constitutions are silent on the subject. The term, "making Masons at sight," is not known to them. It has its origin in another and less credible source. To find it we must leave the paths of true Masonry, and seek it in a body which was spurious in its organization, and impure in its practices. We speak of the term. The principle may be found in the practice, though the words be absent.

In the "Ahiman Rezon," by Laurence Dermott,—Secretary and, subsequently, Deputy Grand Master of the illegal Grand Lodge at London, in the middle of the last century,—as published by the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania in 1781, we find the following :—

"It is the prerogative of the Grand Lodge (not of the Grand Master, as has been maintained), and the R. W. Grand Master has full power and authority (when the Grand Lodge is duly attembled), to make or cause to be made in his Worship's presence, free and accepted Masons at sight, and such making is good; but they cannot be made out of his Worship's presence (see Note 1), without his written dispensation for that purpose.) (see Notes 2 and 3)

Note 1: That is, (as we understand the restriction), out of the Grand Lodge.

Note 2: This power is still in force, and we may add, too freely exercised. The Grand Master dispenses with the previous proposition of the name, and the time required before the balloting I bat not with the "due inquiry into character," nor with the notice to members, tn this sense, Lodges, as before 1717, continue to "make Masons at sight,"—that is, the constitutional provision as to time, is dispensed with, and the candidate is made at once.

Note 3: it is worthy of remark, that this paragraph (for Dermott does not seem, to have regarded it as a regulation), does not appear in the first edition of the Abiman Rezon. We are told that it is to be found in the edition of 1772. That we have not before us. It is contained in the constitutions of the Grand Lodge of New York of 1824, verbally as it is here given. It stands there as an old "constitution." Nevertheless, in the regulations of the same body as revised and published in 1832, it is omitted for the following substitute, viz :—"He (the Grand Master) may make Masons at sight, and for this purpose may summon such Brethren as he may deem necessary to assist him." The difference is material; bnt we need not here stop to disease it. We next find it, in still another form, in Cole's compilation, called "the Freemasons' Library and General Ahiman Rezon"—a work of little value, like most of the hundreds of similar compilations which have been pirated and thrust upon the Fraternity as Masonic guides, within the last quarter of a century. It is there given as an explanatory note, and, as such, purports to be copied from Dermott's work of 1772. It there assumes neither the dignity of a constitution, nor yet of a regulation. There is an important difference in it, however, as given by Cole and as it is given in the Pennsylvania. work. As the former gives it, the material, qualifying clause, within the parenthesis, is wholly omitted. The reader will note this.

In our appreciation of it, this regulation embraces the usage which obtained with our Brethren in England, from and after the re-organization of the Fraternity at London in 1717. While it secures to the Lodges their just rights, and protects the Order against abuse from indiscreet or evil-disposed Grand Masters, to our mind it relieves the subject of all embarrassment. Its terms are clear and comprehensive." It is the prerogative of the Grand Lodge" to make " free and accepted Masons, at sight." What is the prerogative of one, cannot be rightfully exercised by another. When a right or privilege is held in common with another, it ceases to be a prerogative. If the right to make Masons at sight be the prerogative of the Grand Lodge, it is not a prerogative of the Grand Master. His authority to make Masons at sight is, therefore, if our reasoning be correct, a limited and qualified power. It is restricted by the terms of the rule, to be exercised only "when the Grand Lodge is duly assembled." The usual preliminaries required of subordinate Lodges, are then, by virtue of an inherent power in the Grand Lodge, dispensed with; and he may lawfully proceed to make, or in case of inability or disinclination personally to perform the work, cause to be made, " free and accepted Masons, at sight."

The regulation of 1717, was adopted as it stands above. It relates wholly to the " privilege of assembling" for the purpose of making Masons. It provides that such assemblies shall not be lawful, unless authorized by " warrant from the Grand Master," granted on petition, with the " consent and approbation of the Grand Lodge." In 1741, the Grand Lodge ordered, " that no new Lodge for the future, should be constituted within the Bills of Mortality, without the consent of the Brethren assembled in quarterly communication, first [obtained. But this order," says Entick, " afterwards appearing to be an infringement on the prerogative of the Grand Master, and to.be attended with many ifteon* venienoes, and with damage to the Craft, was repealed." (This was only a re-enactment of the regulation of 1717,—called for probably on account of some recent disregard of its restrictions, occasioned by the delay of waiting the action of the Grand Lodge. Hence its inconvenience; and hence also, perhaps, the discovery that it was an "infringement on the prerogative of the Grand Master." We do not find the order among the regulations given in the Constitutions, nor any other notice of its reconsideration than the above.)

It might be hypercritical to ask, what was repealed? The first regulation had been in existence a quarter of a century. Had the Grand Lodge been that length of time in discovering that its provisions were an infringement on the prerogative of the Grand Master," in establishing Lodges? Or did the second regulation, or order, deny to him the right to constitute Lodges after the prescribed formula, without the consent of the Grand Lodge? The language is not altogether clear; but the intention undoubtedly was to restore to him, (for he had not possessed it since the re-organization of the Fraternity in 1717—when many things which had before been regarded as prerogatives were brought, under rules,) the privilege of granting warrants for the organization of Lodges, without the previous action of the Grand Lodge. This is conceded. But we cannot so readily concede the argument attempted to be drawn from it, that because the Grand Master may issue his warrant to a competent number of petitioners, authorizing them to assemble as a Lodge and make Masons, he may therefore make them himself, without the aid of any Lodge, constituted in the form and maimer, and for the purpose contemplated by the reguUv- tion. It is asking too much, when we are required to concede that the Grand Lodge of England in 1741, in restoring to the Grand Master a power which, anterior to 1717, was vested in every Master and Warden > within a given district,—namely, to create Lodges,—intended to invest him with a power in direct rivalry and competition with the Lodges then and thereafter to be constituted, and which were to become, constituent parts of its own body. It is enough to ask us to consent that the Grand Lodge in 1741, knew better than the Brethren who formed the original . Grand Lodge in 1717, and enacted laws for its own and the future government of the Lodges, what, under the altered and progressive circumstances of the Fraternity, it was proper to reserve as prerogatives of the Grand Master. We will not contest this. But it is obvious that at the re-organization of the Order in 1717, the Grand Lodge then formed, believed it had the power, and intended to deny to the Grand Master, as it did to everybody else, the right to constitute Lodges, without the " consent and approbation of the Grand Lodge in communication." The Grand Lodge of 1741, thought proper to assume the right to rescind this rule, and reinvest the Grand Master with a power which he had anciently enjoyed, not as a prerogative, but in common with his Brethren of inferior rank. Had it rescinded the entire rule, it would have left the power on its original basis—as an inherent privilege—but it would have abnegated the original purpose of its own organization.

In this country there is a diversity of practice in the manner of instituting Lodges. We here differ from the existing practice of our English Brethren, without a precise conformity to the rule, either as originally adopted, or amended. Where the power of the Grand Master to establish Lodges, is constitutionally recognized by our Grand Ledges, it is, we believe, in all cases limited, in the extent to which it may be exercised, by the terms of its recognition. The Grand Master, by his Dispensation, may authorize the organization of incarnate Lodges, to exist for a fixed and definite period; at the expiration of which time they terminate by their own limitation, unless continued by the authority of the Grand Lodge. Here the power of the Grand Master is clearly a limited power. It is under the control of the Grand Lodge; and therefore of the nature of a delegated power, which the Grand Lodge may revoke or restrict. In some instances, as in the case of the Grand Lodges of Tennessee and Kentucky, this power is not vested in the Grand Master; but is retained by constitutional provision in the Grand Lodge. Thus literally following the rule as given by Dermott, and regarding the power as "the prerogative of the Grand Lodge." In other cases, as in the Grand Lodges of Massachusetts and Missouri, the power is held by the Grand Lodge ; but allowed, under specific limitations, to be exercised by the Grand Master. Again. By the Constitution of the Grand Lodge of Indiana, the power to create new Lodges by Dispensation, is vested in both the Grand and Deputy Grand Masters. We might continue these illustrations; but enough have been given to indicate the diversity of the usage that exists, and to'show, also, that the power in this country at least, is held as a " prerogative power of the Grand Lodge," to be exercised under its im- mediate control, and subject to such limitations as it may think proper to impose. This could not be the case if it were an inherent and irrevocable prerogative of the Grand Master. We cannot, therefore, concede the argument, that the power to create Lodges, thus delegated to the Grand Master, carries with it a correlative power to "make Masons at sight." (The question of competency to delegate such power (supposing it not to be an original power), must of course be dependent on the answer to the further question, of how far the present Grand Lodges are bound by the regulation of 1717.) If it were permitted to travel out of the precise record, we might instance the practice of the General Grand Chapter and Encampment of the United States. By the Constitutions of those bodies, the first four officers in each, are authorized to institute new Chapters and Encampments; but we do not presume that anybody ever supposed those officers to be, by virtue of this power, authorized to make Eoyal Arch Masons and Knights Templars " at sight." The cases are analagous.

For several years subsequent to 1717, the Grand Lodge was a working body. We learn from the record, that "on the morning of his election, June 34, 1721, George Payne, Esq., Grand Master, assembled the Grand Lodge at the Queen's Arms, in St Paul's Churchyard, made some new Brothers, particularly Phillip, Lord Stanhope, afterwards the Earl of Chesterfield, and then marched, according to the manner of Masons, to a noble feast." In this instance, and others might be cited, the Grand Master, (the Grand Lodge being duly assembled,) conferred all the degrees. As a general rule, however, the Grand Lodge restricted its duties in this respect to the making of Fellow Crafts and Master Masons. Up to the year 1725, the second and third degrees were exclusively conferred in the Grand Lodge. This was its prerogative. In November of that year, it was decreed that "the Master of a Lodge, with his Wardens, and a competent number of the Lodge assembled in due form, can make Masters and Fellows at discretion." But in restoring this privilege to the Lodges, the Grand Lodge did not surrender any of its own inherent authority to make Masons. This remained unimpaired; though it was rarely afterwards exercised, but upon extraordinary occasions. (The power to make Masons was early recognized, and in one or two instances, within ear recollection, has been exercised by the old Grand Lodges in ibis eouniry—but never, we believe, by a Grand Master, until the present year.)

On such emergencies, special meetings, or as they are called in the abstract of the proceedings of the Grand Lodge (Not the proceedings of private Lodges. These were not matters of record in the Grand Lodge then, more than now), as given by Anderson, Entick, and others, "occasional Lodges"—such as are referred to in the following "old regulation":—" If at any Grand Lodge, stated or occasional, monthly or annual, the Grand Master and Deputy should both be absent," then the last Past Grand Master shall preside. (Hence the Grand Lodge held not only annual and quarterly, but monthly and "occasional Lodges." (This resolution was afterwards corrected so as to give precedence to the Wardens over Past Grand Masters.) It was under this regulation, that the Rev. Dr. Desaguliers, a Past Grand Master, presided over one of these " occasional Lodges," held in the Palace at Kew, in 1737, for the-initiation of the Prince of Wales. " (It was not unusual to hold such Lodges out of the city of London. In 17S1, Lord Lovell, Grand Master, held one in Houghton Hall, in Norfolk, and raised the Duke of Lorraine, who had previously received the preceding degrees at the Hague.

"Mr. William Gofton, sen., attorney-at-law, and Mr. Erasmus King, jun., mathematician," says the record, officiated as Grand Wardens. Had this been a private Lodge, the officiating Wardens would not have been designated and recorded as Grand Wardens. (It is not singular that neither the Grand Master nor his Deputy was present at this meeting. At the annual communication of the "Grand Lodge, in form," held at London on the 27th of Dec. 1736, the S. W. presided, with the J. W. as his Deputy, and two other Brethren as Wardens pro tempore.) They were not the regular Grand Wardens at the time, but were appointed for the occasion. The Lodge was an "occasional" or special Grand Lodge, convened under the authority of the Grand Master; and its officers are, therefore, properly styled Grand officers. It would seem that this fact sufficiently marks the distinctive character of what, in these Grand Lodge proceedings, are termed "occasional Lodges." (It may be proper to remark here, that, at this time, it was only at the quarterly and annual meetings of the Grand Lodge, that the private Lodges, which were few in number, were represented by their Masters and Wardens. They were not represented at their "occasional Lodges," for prudential, or reasons of state.)

In 1764, the Duke of Gloucester was initiated, the Grand Master presiding; and in 1758, the Duke of Cumberland was also initiated, the Deputy in the chair. Both were made in "occasional Lodges" in London. In the latter case, the Grand Master was absent in Ireland. If these Lodges were not Grand Lodges, then it would seem that the Deputy Grand Master must also be invested with power to make Masons "at sight;" or that the Grand Master was at liberty to transfer his prerogative to another. If they were Grand Lodges, then the Deputy, while presiding, was authorized by the rule, to exercise all the powers which appertain to the Grand Master. Not otherwise. Prerogatives belong to the office, not to the person. He can neither transfer nor alienate them.

In February, 1787, the Prince of Wales was made at an "occasional Lodge;" and in November following, the Duke of York was initiated " t a special Lodge." The Duke of Cumberland, Grand Master, presided in both cases. In 1795, the Duke of Gloucester was initiated, also in an " occasional Lodge." It is not stated who presided, but probably his brother, the Prince of Wales, who was Grand Master at the time. These, we believe, comprise all the " occasional Lodges " named in the books. They were rarely held, and only on extraordinary occasions; when considerations of state made them expedient; as when persons of royal lineage were to be initiated. (This fact is of importance, as showing that they were not of so frequent occurrence as to establish a rule of action; or to be used as precedents, under entirely different circumstances. In this country, where the degrees of blood are little regarded, the necessity for them cannot exist. No such occasions can arise to authorize tbem, as those on which, they were employed by our Brethren in England.

None appear to have been held in the present century. The high respectability of several of the private Lodges in London—as the Prince of Wales' Lodge, of which George IV., while Prince of Wales, was Master—has rendered them unnecessary. Of their character, and the sanctions under which they were assembled, our readers can decide for themselves, from what has been already said. One thing is most certain, they were regularly organized, and were presided over by the proper Grand officer; or, as in the case of Dr. Desaguliers, by some Brother qualified, and who would have been authorized to preside over the Grand Lodge, under corresponding circumstances. Another point is worthy of note. If they were held by virtue of the alleged prerogative of the Grand Master to make Masons at sight, then it is certain that the Grand Master can delegate the exercise of this important an d as recent occurrences have demonstrated) dangerous power, to whomever he may see fit to entrust it. And if he may delegate it to one, he may delegate it to a hundred Brethren ; and there need be no end to the "making of Masons at sight;" there need be no further occasion for Lodges. This is only carrying the principle out to its ultimate results. Our Brother in California has done enough in this way, for illustration. Let us take the example he has set us, and improve it as a lesson of .wisdom, drawn from experience. We would not subtract one iota from any authority which clearly belongs to the Grand Master; neither would we invest him with a doubtful prerogative power. All such powers are better and safer in the hands of the constituent body.

1853

Rejection of Candidates

From Vol. XII, No. 4, February 1853, p. 103:

The rule in the admission of candidates in this Commonwealth, is to take but one ballot for the three degrees. (The whole fee accompanies the application. This is also the English rule.) We believe no other general practice has ever obtained here, though there may have been isolated exceptions to it. A good old rule of other days, required that the candidate for advancement should pass an examination in open Lodge, as to his proficiency in the preceding degree. (This rule has of late years fallen much into disuse, though not entirely abandoned. It would be well if it were fully restored.) Here a question for the Lodge was usually raised, not as to his moral fitness,—unless the candidate had been long absent,—but as to his Masonic qualifications ; and this question was taken by hand vote, and decided by the majority. It being presumed that a full investigation of character is made prior to admission to the first degree, a second ballot on advancement is not deemed necessary, especially when no great length of time intervenes between the conferring of the degrees; and inasmuch as it is always competent for any member, for reasons which shall be satisfactory to the Lodge, to stay the proceedings. But a different practice prevails in other parts of the country, and a ballot is taken on each degree. Under this rule a correspondent states the following case as having occurred :—

"A candidate having been initiated and passed, was rejected on the third degree. He appealed to the Grand Lodge. The appeal was sustained, and the case referred back to the Lodge with instructions. It was committed. The committee could find nothing to rest charges upon. The candidate again applied for the third degree, and was again rejected by one vote. He then applied and received a demit as a worthy fellow-craft. Was he entitled to a demit?"

The point in this case which strikes us as the one of most doubtful propriety, is that the appeal should have been advised by the friends of the initiate, or sustained by the Grand Lodge. The rule requiring a new application and ballot on the third degree, placed the candidate before the Lodge in the relation of an original petitioner,—except perhaps that it did not impose the necessity of committing the application, nor require the delay before acting upon it which follows a first petition. Now, there is nothing more clear than that the Lodges are the sole judges of the fitness of their own candidates. This is an inherent power, inseparable from their organization—a necessity of their existence. As in the case of all their other charter-powers, they are responsible to the Grand Lodge for the abuse of it. But caution in the use of a power, even when carried to excess, does not"constitute an abuse of it. At the present time, when candidates are pressing in from all directions, we should rather account it a virtue. The great fault, and the great danger is, that our Lodges are not sufficiently cautious—that they are too free—that they allow their doors to swing too easily on their hinges. And it is undoubtedly true, that the interests and character of the Institution would be more secure,

if ten applicants were denied admission where one is now rejected. In this view of the matter, it might be well if the whole question of admission were left to the decision of the Grand Lodges; but it would not be Masonic ; neither would it be practicable. Yet the allowing appeals to rejected candidates, and sending them back to the Lodges with instructions to confer the degrees or prefer charges, is coming to about the same result, and through an altogether exceptionable process. It is not only de- stoying the power and purposes of. private ballot, but is depriving the Lodges of their free agency, — degrading them to the condition of thinking through other brains and acting through other wills than their own. It is placing them in a condition where they might be required to do that which, if done of their own motion, would subject them to the loss of their charters. In the most favorable light in which we can view the subject, it would be exacting of them the performance of an act, the direct tendency of which would inevitably be to destroy the harmony which is essential to their prosperity. The only correct and Masonic rule, is to leave the whole question of admission where it belongs,—in the hands of the Lodges. If any of them are found to bo unworthy of the trust, let their charters be revoked.

The ostensible error in the present case is, that the member casting the negative ballot did not manifest his objection at the first balloting; though it is charitable to believe that the cause which now influences him was at that time unknown to him, or did not exist; or he may not hare been present at either of the previous ballotings. If he has been influenced by improper or personal motives, he is unworthy of his membership. But of this he alone is the judge; as he is the keeper of his own secrets and the guardian of his own conscience. Had the ballot for the three degrees been taken at the first balloting, he Would now be required to make his objections known, and the responsibility of proceeding would be thrown upon the Lodge. As it is, he has the same right to his private ballot that he would have had at the original balloting, and he is protected by the same guaranties.

In respect to the inquiry of our correspondent, whether the candidate was entitled to a demit from the Lodge, it is sufficient to say, that a demit is a discharge from membership ; and as he was not a member of the Lodge, he could not properly receive any such discharge. The Lodge might have given him a certificate that he had been regularly passed as a craftsman, and rejected on his application for advancement, for reasons not made known to the Lodge. He certainly is a fellow-craft; and, there being no actionable charges against him, is in regular standing, and may exercise his privileges>as such, until such time as the cause of his rejection is removed, or he is expelled.

Lodge Membership (Entered Apprentices ad Fellowcrafts)

From Vol. XII, No. 4, February 1853, p. 107:

We are asked by a correspondent, if apprentices and fellow-crafts are eligible for membership in Lodges? This question has been discussed on previous occasions; and it has been decided in the negative by nearly or quite every Grand Lodge in this country. It is therefore a settled question; and the practice, so far as we are informed, corresponds with the rule so established. This, however, has not always been the practice. Anciently there were apprentice and craft Lodges. Long after the adoption of the modern system of Masonic government, Lodges did not possess the power to make Master Masons. At the time indicated, apprentices and craftsmen were undoubtedly enrolled members of Lodges; and, under certain circumstances, they' were admitted to a voice and a vote in Grand Lodge. But the system has been modified. Lodges are now authorized to make Masters; and their charters are granted to none of an inferior degree. Hence there are apprentice and fellow-craft Lodges, only as existing under the authority of Masters' Lodges, and for specific and limited purposes. Literally speaking, there are no such Lodges. Their distinctive feature has been merged in another. The Lodges now created by Grand Lodges are Masters' Lodges, with power to open in the appropriate degrees, and make apprentices and craftsmen. When thus open, they are Lodges for the reception of initiates or craftsmen. This, under the existing practice, is the only proper business of their creation. They cannot admit members. Hence membership appertains only to Masters' Lodges. Under the present system the rule could not with propriety be otherwise. If apprentices were admitted, to membership, they could be present only when the Lodge was open on the first degree.— They could take no part in the business of the Lodge, for all business, except the actual work if the inferior degrees, is transacted in a Masters' Lodge. Membership with them would therefore be merely nominal. It could not be actual, because they would not be in a condition to enjoy its privileges or fulfil its obligations.

But we need not argue this question further. The practice in this country we believe to be uniform and correct; and whatever itinerant pretenders may urge to the contrary, there is no probability that it will soon undergo any change. It is founded in reason and the necessities of the case, and it will stand. We have been induced to notice it, not from any apprehension of a change, but merely to oblige our correspondent, and to counteract any influence which the bold assertions of empiricism may be supposed to hove had upon the minds of Brethren in his vicinity, who, like himself, do not possess the necessary information on the subject to enable them to correct the misstatements referred to by him. And it may be proper to remark here, that the natural and inevitable consequence of allowing itinerant lecturers and preachers to stroll about the country,

scattering their crude and pernicious opinions among the Lodges, is the unsettling of the minds of young and uninformed Brethren, on questions in relation to which they have not the means of authentic information. The present is a case of this kind ; and the Grand Lodges owe it to themselves—to their dignity and authority, as well as to the harmony and prosperity of their Lodges—to put a stop to a practice so pregnant with evil. If the Master is incapable of instructing his Lodge in all things useful for its interests, it is far better that the Grand Lodge should itself incur the expense of sending a competent and authorized Brother to instruct him, than to allow irresponsible intinerant missionaries to spread the seeds of discord over its jurisdiction.

Edicts Main Page