|
THE LAW OF GRAND LODGES
book first
the principles of masonic law
Albert Gallatin Mackey
It is proposed in this Book, first to present the reader with a brief
historical sketch of the rise and progress of the system of Grand Lodges;
and then to explain, in the subsequent sections, the mode in which such
bodies are originally organized, who constitute their officers and
members, and what are their acknowledged prerogatives.
Grand Lodges under their present organization, are, in respect to the
antiquity of the Order, of a comparatively modern date. We hear of no such
bodies in the earlier ages of the institution. Tradition informs us, that
originally it was governed by the despotic authority of a few chiefs. At
the building of the temple, we have reason to believe that King Solomon
exercised an unlimited and irresponsible control over the craft, although
a tradition (not, however, of undoubted authority) says that he was
assisted in his government by the counsel of twelve superintendants,
selected from the twelve tribes of Israel. But we know too little, from
authentic materials, of the precise system adopted at that remote period,
to enable us to make any historical deductions on the subject.
The first historical notice that we have of the formation of a supreme
controlling body of the fraternity, is in the "Gothic
Constitutions"4
which assert that, in the year 287, St. Alban, the protomartyr of England,
who was a zealous patron of the craft, obtained from Carausius, the
British Emperor, "a charter for the Masons to hold a general council, and
gave it the name of assembly." The record further states, that St. Alban
attended the meeting and assisted in making Masons, giving them "good
charges and regulations." We know not, however, whether this assembly ever
met again; and if it did, for how many years it continued to exist. The
subsequent history of Freemasonry is entirely silent on the subject.
The next general assemblage of the craft, of which the records of
Freemasonry inform us, was that convened in 926, at the city of York, in
England, by Prince Edwin, the brother of King Athelstane, and the grandson
of Alfred the Great. This, we say, was the next general assemblage,
because the Ashmole manuscript, which was destroyed at the revival of
Freemasonry in 1717, is said to have stated that, at that time, the Prince
obtained from his brother, the king, a permission for the craft "to hold a
yearly communication and a general assembly." The fact that such a power
of meeting was then granted, is conclusive that it did not before exist:
and would seem to prove that the assemblies of the craft, authorised by
the charter of Carausius, had long since ceased to be held. This yearly
communication did not, however, constitute, at least in the sense we now
understand it, a Grand Lodge. The name given to it was that of the
"General Assembly of Masons." It was not restricted, as now, to the
Masters and Wardens of the subordinate lodges, acting in the capacity of
delegates or representatives, but was composed, as Preston has observed,
of as many of the fraternity at large as, being within a convenient
distance, could attend once or twice a year, under the auspices of one
general head, who was elected and installed at one of these meetings, and
who, for the time being, received homage as the governor of the whole
body. Any Brethren who were competent to discharge the duty, were allowed,
by the regulations of the Order, to open and hold lodges at their
discretion, at such times and places as were most convenient to them, and
without the necessity of what we now call a Warrant of Constitution, and
then and there to initiate members into the Order.5
To the General Assembly, however, all the craft, without distinction, were
permitted to repair; each Mason present was entitled to take part in the
deliberations, and the rules and regulations enacted were the result of
the votes of the whole body. The General Assembly was, in fact, precisely
similar to those political congregations which, in our modern phraseology,
we term "mass meetings."
These annual mass meetings or General Assemblies continued to be held,
for many centuries after their first establishment, at the city of York,
and were, during all that period, the supreme judicatory of the
fraternity. There are frequent references to the annual assemblies of
Freemasons in public documents. The preamble to an act passed in 1425,
during the reign of Henry VI., just five centuries after the meeting at
York, states that, "by the yearly congregations and confederacies
made by the Masons in their general assemblies, the good course and
effect of the statute of laborers were openly violated and broken." This
act which forbade such meetings, was, however, never put in force; for an
old record, quoted in the Book of Constitutions, speaks of the Brotherhood
having frequented this "mutual assembly," in 1434, in the reign of the
same king. We have another record of the General Assembly, which was held
in York on the 27th December, 1561, when Queen Elizabeth, who was
suspicious of their secrecy, sent an armed force to dissolve the meeting.
A copy is still preserved of the regulations which were adopted by a
similar assembly held in 1663, on the festival of St. John the Evangelist;
and in these regulations it is declared that the private lodges shall give
an account of all their acceptations made during the year to the General
Assembly. Another regulation, however, adopted at the same time, still
more explicitly acknowledges the existence of a General Assembly as the
governing body of the fraternity. It is there provided, "that for the
future, the said fraternity of Freemasons shall be regulated and governed
by one Grand Master and as many Wardens as the said society shall think
fit to appoint at every Annual General Assembly."
And thus the interests of the institution continued, until the
beginning of the eighteenth century, or for nearly eight hundred years, to
be entrusted to those General Assemblies of the fraternity, who, without
distinction of rank or office, annually met at York to legislate for the
government of the craft.
But in 1717, a new organization of the governing head was adopted,
which gave birth to the establishment of a Grand Lodge, in the form in
which these bodies now exist. So important a period in the history of
Masonry demands our special attention.
After the death, in 1702, of King William, who was himself a Mason, and
a great patron of the craft, the institution began to languish, the lodges
decreased in number, and the General Assembly was entirely neglected for
many years. A few old lodges continued, it is true, to meet regularly, but
they consisted of only a few members.
At length, on the accession of George I., the Masons of London and its
vicinity determined to revive the annual communications of the society.
There were at that time only four lodges in the south of England, and the
members of these, with several old Brethren, met in February, 1717, at the
Apple Tree Tavern, in Charles street, Covent Garden, and organized by
putting the oldest Master Mason, who was the Master of a lodge, in the
chair; they then constituted themselves into what Anderson calls, "a Grand
Lodge pro tempore;" resolved to hold the annual assembly and feast,
and then to choose a Grand Master.
Accordingly, on the 24th of June, 1717, the assembly and feast were
held; and the oldest Master of a lodge being in the chair, a list of
candidates was presented, out of which Mr. Anthony Sayer was elected Grand
Master, and Capt. Joseph Elliott and Mr. Jacob Lamball, Grand Wardens.
The Grand Master then commanded the Masters and Wardens of lodges to
meet the Grand Officers every quarter, in communication, at the place he
should appoint in his summons sent by the Tiler.
This was, then, undoubtedly, the commencement of that organization of
the Masters and Wardens of lodges into a Grand Lodge, which has ever since
continued to exist.
The fraternity at large, however, still continued to claim the right of
being present at the annual assembly; and, in fact, at that meeting, their
punctual attendance at the next annual assembly and feast was
recommended.
At the same meeting, it was resolved "that the privilege of assembling
as Masons, which had been hitherto unlimited, should be vested in certain
lodges or assemblies of Masons convened in certain places; and that every
lodge to be hereafter convened, except the four old lodges at this time
existing, should be legally authorized to act by a warrant from the Grand
Master for the time being, granted to certain individuals by petition,
with the consent and approbation of the Grand Lodge in communication; and
that, without such warrant, no lodge should be hereafter deemed regular or
constitutional."
In consequence of this regulation, several new lodges received Warrants
of Constitution, and their Masters and Wardens were ordered to attend the
communications of the Grand Lodge. The Brethren at large vested all their
privileges in the four old lodges, in trust that they would never suffer
the old charges and landmarks to be infringed; and the old lodges, in
return, agreed that the Masters and Wardens of every new lodge that might
be constituted, should be permitted to share with them all the privileges
of the Grand Lodge, except precedence of rank. The Brethren, says Preston,
considered their further attendance at the meetings of the society
unnecessary after these regulations were adopted; and therefore trusted
implicitly to their Masters and Wardens for the government of the craft;
and thenceforward the Grand Lodge has been composed of all the Masters and
Wardens of the subordinate lodges which constitute the jurisdiction.
The ancient right of the craft, however, to take a part in the
proceedings of the Grand Lodge or Annual Assembly, was fully acknowledged
by a new regulation, adopted about the same time, in which it is declared
that all alterations of the Constitutions must be proposed and agreed to,
at the third quarterly communication preceding the annual feast, and be
offered also to the perusal of all the Brethren before dinner,
even of the youngest Entered Apprentice6
This regulation has, however, (I know not by what right,) become
obsolete, and the Annual Assembly of Masons has long ceased to be held;
the Grand Lodges having, since the beginning of the eighteenth century,
assumed the form and organization which they still preserve, as strictly
representative bodies.
The topic to be discussed in this section is, the answer to the
question, How shall a Grand Lodge be established in any state or country
where such a body has not previously existed, but where there are
subordinate lodges working under Warrants derived from Grand Lodges in
other states? In answering this question, it seems proper that I should
advert to the course pursued by the original Grand Lodge of England, at
its establishment in 1717, as from that body nearly all the Grand Lodges
of the York rite now in existence derive their authority, either directly
or indirectly, and the mode of its organization has, therefore,
universally been admitted to have been regular and legitimate.
In the first place, it is essentially requisite that the active
existence of subordinate lodges in a state should precede the formation of
a Grand Lodge; for the former are the only legitimate sources of the
latter. A mass meeting of Masons cannot assemble and organize a Grand
Lodge. A certain number of lodges, holding legal warrants from a Grand
Lodge or from different Grand Lodges, must meet by their representatives
and proceed to the formation of a Grand Lodge. When that process has been
accomplished, the subordinate lodges return the warrants, under which they
had theretofore worked, to the Grand Lodges from which they had originally
received them, and take new ones from the body which they have formed.
That a mass meeting of the fraternity of any state is incompetent to
organize a Grand Lodge has been definitively settled—not only by general
usage, but by the express action of the Grand Lodges of the United States
which refused to recognize, in 1842, the Grand Lodge of Michigan which had
been thus irregularly established in the preceding year. That unrecognized
body was then dissolved by the Brethren of Michigan, who proceeded to
establish four subordinate lodges under Warrants granted by the Grand
Lodge of New York. These four lodges subsequently met in convention and
organized the present Grand Lodge of Michigan in a regular manner.
It seems, however, to have been settled in the case of Vermont, that
where a Grand Lodge has been dormant for many years, and all of its
subordinates extinct, yet if any of the Grand Officers, last elected,
survive and are present, they may revive the Grand Lodge and proceed
constitutionally to the exercise of its prerogatives.
The next inquiry is, as to the number of lodges required to organize a
new Grand Lodge. Dalcho says that five lodges are necessary; and in
this opinion he is supported by the Ahiman Rezon of Pennsylvania,
published in 1783 by William Smith, D.D., at that time the Grand Secretary
of that jurisdiction, and also by some other authorities. But no such
regulation is to be found in the Book of Constitutions, which is now
admitted to contain the fundamental law of the institution. Indeed, its
adoption would have been a condemnation of the legality of the Mother
Grand Lodge of England, which was formed in 1717 by the union of only
four lodges. The rule, however, is to be found in the Ahiman Rezon
of Laurence Dermott, which was adopted by the "Grand Lodge of Ancient
Freemasons," that seceded from the lawful Grand Lodge in 1738. But as that
body was undoubtedly, under our present views of masonic law, schismatic
and illegal, its regulations have never been considered by masonic writers
as being possessed of any authority.
In the absence of any written law upon the subject, we are compelled to
look to precedent for authority; and, although the Grand Lodges in the
United States have seldom been established with a representation of less
than four lodges, the fact that that of Texas was organized in 1837 by the
representatives of only three lodges, and that the Grand Lodge thus
instituted was at once recognized as legal and regular by all its sister
Grand Lodges, seems to settle the question that three subordinates are
sufficient to institute a Grand Lodge.
Three lodges, therefore, in any territory where a Grand Lodge does not
already exist, may unite in convention and organize a Grand Lodge. It will
then be necessary, that these lodges should surrender the warrants under
which they had been previously working, and take out new warrants from the
Grand Lodge which they have constituted; and, from that time forth, all
masonic authority is vested in the Grand Lodge thus formed.
The Grand Lodge having been thus constituted, the next inquiries that
suggest themselves are as to its members and its officers, each of which
questions will occupy a distinct discussion.
It is an indisputable fact that the "General Assembly" which met at
York in 926 was composed of all the members of the fraternity who chose to
repair to it; and it is equally certain that, at the first Grand Lodge,
held in 1717, after the revival of Masonry, all the craft who were present
exercised the right of membership in voting for Grand Officers,7
and must, therefore, have been considered members of the Grand Lodge. The
right does not, however, appear to have been afterwards claimed. At this
very assembly, the Grand Master who had been elected, summoned only the
Master and Wardens of the lodges to meet him in the quarterly
communications; and Preston distinctly states, that soon after, the
Brethren of the four old lodges, which had constituted the Grand Lodge,
considered their attendance on the future communications of the society
unnecessary, and therefore concurred with the lodges which had been
subsequently warranted in delegating the power of representation to their
Masters and Wardens, "resting satisfied that no measure of importance
would be adopted without their approbation."
Any doubts upon the subject were, however, soon put at rest by the
enactment of a positive law. In 1721, thirty-nine articles for the future
government of the craft were approved and confirmed, the twelfth of which
was in the following words:
"The Grand Lodge consists of, and is formed by, the Masters and Wardens
of all the regular particular lodges upon record, with the Grand Master at
their head, and his Deputy on his left hand, and the Grand Wardens in
their proper places."
From time to time, the number of these constituents of a Grand Lodge
were increased by the extension of the qualifications for membership.
Thus, in 1724, Past Grand Masters, and in 1725, Past Deputy Grand Masters,
were admitted as members of the Grand Lodge. Finally it was decreed that
the Grand Lodge should consist of the four present and all past grand
officers; the Grand Treasurer, Secretary, and Sword-Bearer; the Master,
Wardens, and nine assistants of the Grand Stewards' lodge, and the Masters
and Wardens of all the regular lodges.
Past Masters were not at first admitted as members of the Grand Lodge.
There is no recognition of them in the old Constitutions. Walworth thinks
it must have been after 1772 that they were introduced.8
I have extended my researches to some years beyond that period, without
any success in finding their recognition as members under the Constitution
of England. It is true that, in 1772, Dermott prefixed a note to his
edition of the Ahiman Rezon, in which he asserts that "Past Masters of
warranted lodges on record are allowed this privilege (of membership)
whilst they continue to be members of any regular lodge." And it is,
doubtless, on this imperfect authority, that the Grand Lodges of America
began at so early a period to admit their Past Masters to seats in the
Grand Lodge. In the authorized Book of Constitutions, we find no such
provision. Indeed, Preston records that in 1808, at the laying of the
foundation-stone of the Covent Garden Theatre, by the Prince of Wales, as
Grand Master, "the Grand Lodge was opened by Charles Marsh, Esq., attended
by the Masters and Wardens of all the regular lodges;" and,
throughout the description of the ceremonies, no notice is taken of Past
Masters as forming any part of the Grand Lodge. The first notice that we
have been enabled to obtain of Past Masters, as forming any part of the
Grand Lodge of England, is in the "Articles of Union between the two Grand
Lodges of England," adopted in 1813, which declare that the Grand Lodge
shall consist of the Grand and Past Grand Officers, of the actual Masters
and Wardens of all the warranted lodges, and of the "Past Masters of
Lodges who have regularly served and passed the chair before the day of
Union, and who continued, without secession, regular contributing members
of a warranted lodge." But it is provided, that after the decease of all
these ancient Past Masters, the representation of every lodge shall
consist of its Master and Wardens, and one Past Master only. There is, I
presume, no doubt that, from 1772, Past Masters had held a seat in the
Athol Grand Lodge of Ancient Masons, and that they did not in the original
Grand Lodge, is, I believe, a fact equally indisputable. By the present
constitutions of the United Grand Lodge of England, Past Masters are
members of the Grand Lodge, while they continue subscribing members of a
private lodge. In some of the Grand Lodges of the United States, Past
Masters have been permitted to retain their membership, while in others,
they have been disfranchised.
On the whole, the result of this inquiry seems to be, that Past Masters
have no inherent right, derived from the ancient landmarks, to a seat in
the Grand Lodge; but as every Grand Lodge has the power, within certain
limits, to make regulations for its own government, it may or may not
admit them to membership, according to its own notion of expediency.
Some of the Grand Lodges have not only disfranchised Past Masters but
Wardens also, and restricted membership only to acting Masters. This
innovation has arisen from the fact that the payment of mileage and
expenses to three representative would entail a heavy burden on the
revenue of the Grand Lodge. The reason may have been imperative; but in
the practice, pecuniary expediency has been made to override an ancient
usage.
In determining, then, who are the constitutional members of a Grand
Lodge, deriving their membership from inherent right, I should say that
they are the Masters and Wardens of all regular lodges in the
jurisdiction, with the Grand Officers chosen by them. All others, who by
local regulations are made members, are so only by courtesy, and not by
prescription or ancient law.
The officers of a Grand Lodge may be divided into two classes,
essential and accidental, or, as they are more usually
called, Grand and Subordinate. The former of these classes
are, as the name imports, essential to the composition of a Grand Lodge,
and are to be found in every jurisdiction, having existed from the
earliest times. They are the Grand and Deputy Grand Masters, the Grand
Wardens, Grand Treasurer, and Grand Secretary. The Grand Chaplain is also
enumerated among the Grand Officers, but the office is of comparatively
modern date.
The subordinate officers of a Grand Lodge consist of the Deacons,
Marshal, Pursuivant, or Sword-Bearer, Stewards, and others, whose titles
and duties vary in different jurisdictions. I shall devote a separate
section to the consideration of the duties of each and prerogatives of
these officers.
The office of Grand Master of Masons has existed from the very origin
of the institution; for it has always been necessary that the fraternity
should have a presiding head. There have been periods in the history of
the institution when neither Deputies nor Grand Wardens are mentioned, but
there is no time in its existence when it was without a Grand Master; and
hence Preston, while speaking of that remote era in which the fraternity
was governed by a General Assembly, says that this General Assembly or
Grand Lodge "was not then restricted, as it is now understood to be, to
the Masters and Wardens of private lodges, with the Grand Master and his
Wardens at their head; it consisted of as many of the Fraternity at
large as, being within a convenient distance, could attend, once or
twice in a year, under the auspices of one general head, who was elected
and installed at one of these meetings; and who for the time being
received homage as the sole governor of the whole body."9
The office is one of great honour as well as power, and has generally been
conferred upon some individual distinguished by an influential position in
society; so that his rank and character might reflect credit upon the
craft.10
The Grand Mastership is an elective office, the election being annual
and accompanied with impressive ceremonies of proclamation and homage made
to him by the whole craft. Uniform usage, as well as the explicit
declaration of the General Regulations,11
seems to require that he should be installed by the last Grand Master. But
in his absence the Deputy or some Past Grand Master may exercise the
functions of installation or investiture. In the organization of a new
Grand Lodge, ancient precedent and the necessity of the thing will
authorize the performance of the installation by the Master of the oldest
lodge present, who, however, exercises, pro hac vice, the
prerogatives and assumes the place of a Grand Master.
The Grand Master possesses a great variety of prerogatives, some of
which are derived from the "lex non scripta," or ancient usage; and others
from the written or statute law of Masonry.12
I. He has the right to convene the Grand Lodge whenever he pleases, and
to preside over its deliberation. In the decision of all questions by the
Grand Lodge he is entitled to two votes. This is a privilege secured to
him by Article XII. of the General Regulations.
It seems now to be settled, by ancient usage as well as the expressed
opinion of the generality of Grand Lodges and of masonic writers, that
there is no appeal from his decision. In June, 1849, the Grand Master of
New York, Bro. Williard, declared an appeal to be out of order and refused
to submit it to the Grand Lodge. The proceedings on that eventful occasion
have been freely discussed by the Grand Lodges of the United States, and
none of them have condemned the act of the Grand Master, while several
have sustained it in express terms. "An appeal," say the Committee of
Correspondence of Maryland, "from the decision of the Grand Master is an
anomaly at war with every principle of Freemasonry, and as such, not for a
moment to be tolerated or countenanced."13
This opinion is also sustained by the Committee of the Grand Lodge of
Florida in the year 1851, and at various times by other Grand Lodges. On
the other hand, several Grand Lodges have made decisions adverse to this
prerogative, and the present regulations of the Grand Lodge of England
seem, by a fair interpretation of their phraseology, to admit of an appeal
from the Grand Master. Still the general opinion of the craft in this
country appears to sustain the doctrine, that no appeal can be made from
the decision of that officer. And this doctrine has derived much support
in the way of analogy from the report adopted by the General Grand Chapter
of the United States, declaring that no appeal could lie from the decision
of the presiding officer of any Royal Arch body.
Since we have enunciated this doctrine as masonic law, the question
next arises, in what manner shall the Grand Master be punished, should he
abuse his great prerogative? The answer to this question admits of no
doubt. It is to be found in a regulation, adopted in 1721, by the Grand
Lodge of England, and is in these words:—"If the Grand Master should abuse
his great power, and render himself unworthy of the obedience and
submission of the Lodges, he shall be treated in a way and manner to be
agreed upon in a new regulation." But the same series of regulations very
explicitly prescribe, how this new regulation is to be made; namely, it is
to be "proposed and agreed to at the third quarterly communication
preceding the annual Grand Feast, and offered to the perusal of all the
Brethren before dinner, in writing, even of the youngest entered
apprentice; the approbation and consent of the majority of all the
Brethren present being absolutely necessary, to make the same binding and
obligatory."14
This mode of making a new regulation is explicitly and positively
prescribed—it can be done in no other way—and those who accept the old
regulations as the law of Masonry, must accept this provision with them.
This will, in the present organization of many Grand Lodges, render it
almost impracticable to make such a new regulation, in which case the
Grand Master must remain exempt from other punishment for his misdeeds,
than that which arises from his own conscience, and the loss of his
Brethren's regard and esteem.
II. The power of granting dispensations is one of the most important
prerogatives of the Grand Master. A dispensation may be defined to be an
exemption from the observance of some law or the performance of some duty.
In Masonry, no one has the authority to grant this exemption, except the
Grand Master; and, although the exercise of it is limited within the
observance of the ancient landmarks, the operation of the prerogative is
still very extensive. The dispensing power may be exercised under the
following circumstances:
1. The fourth old Regulation prescribes that "no lodge shall make more
than five new Brothers at one and the same time without an urgent
necessity."15
But of this necessity the Grand Master may judge, and, on good and
sufficient reason being shown, he may grant a dispensation enabling any
lodge to suspend this regulation and make more than five new Brothers.
2. The next regulation prescribes "that no one can be accepted a member
of a particular lodge without previous notice, one month before given to
the lodge, in order to make due inquiry into the reputation and capacity
of the candidate." But here, also, it is held that, in a suitable case of
emergency, the Grand Master may exercise his prerogative and dispense with
this probation of one month, permitting the candidate to be made on the
night of his application.
3. If a lodge should have omitted for any causes to elect its officers
or any of them on the constitutional night of election, or if any officer
so elected shall have died, been deposed or removed from the jurisdiction
subsequent to his election, the Grand Master may issue a dispensation
empowering the lodge to proceed to an election or to fill the vacancy at
any other specified communication; but he cannot grant a dispensation to
elect a new master in consequence of the death or removal of the old one,
while the two Wardens or either of them remain—because the Wardens succeed
by inherent right and in order of seniority to the vacant mastership. And,
indeed, it is held that while one of the three officers remains, no
election can be held, even by dispensation, to fill the other two places,
though vacancies in them may have occurred by death or removal.
4. The Grand Master may grant a dispensation empowering a lodge to
elect a Master from among the members on the floor; but this must be done
only when every Past Master, Warden, and Past Warden of the lodge has
refused to serve,16
because ordinarily a requisite qualification for the Mastership is, that
the candidate shall, previously, have served in the office of Warden.
5. In the year 1723 a regulation was adopted, prescribing "that no
Brother should belong to more than one lodge within the bills of
mortality." Interpreting the last expression to mean three miles—which is
now supposed to be the geographical limit of a lodge's jurisdiction, this
regulation may still be considered as a part of the law of Masonry; but in
some Grand Lodges, as that of South Carolina, for instance, the Grand
Master will sometimes exercise his prerogative, and, dispensing with this
regulation, permit a Brother to belong to two lodges, although they may be
within three miles of each other.
6. But the most important power of the Grand Master connected with his
dispensing prerogative is, that of constituting new lodges. It has already
been remarked that, anciently, a warrant was not required for the
formation of a lodge, but that a sufficient number of Masons, met together
within a certain limit, were empowered, with the consent of the sheriff or
chief magistrate of the place, to make Masons and practice the rites of
Masonry, without such warrant of Constitution. But, in the year 1717, it
was adopted as a regulation, that every lodge, to be thereafter convened,
should be authorised to act by a warrant from the Grand Master for the
time being, granted to certain persons by petition, with the consent and
approbation of the Grand Lodge in communication. Ever since that time, no
lodge has been considered as legally established, unless it has been
constituted by the authority of the Grand Master. In the English
Constitutions, the instrument thus empowering a lodge to meet, is called,
when granted by the Grand Master, a Warrant of Constitution. It is granted
by the Grand Master and not by the Grand Lodge. It appears to be a final
instrument, notwithstanding the provision enacted in 1717, requiring the
consent and approbation of the Grand Lodge; for in the Constitution of the
United Grand Lodge of England, there is no allusion whatever to this
consent and approbation.
But in this country, the process is somewhat different, and the Grand
Master is deprived of a portion of his prerogative. Here, the instrument
granted by the Grand Master is called a Dispensation. The lodge receiving
it is not admitted into the register of lodges, nor is it considered as
possessing any of the rights and privileges of a lodge, except that of
making Masons, until a Warrant of Constitution is granted by the Grand
Lodge. The ancient prerogative of the Grand Master is, however, preserved
in the fact, that after a lodge has been thus warranted by the Grand
Lodge, the ceremony of constituting it, which embraces its consecration
and the installation of its officers, can only be performed by the Grand
Master in person, or by his special Deputy appointed for that
purpose.17
III. The third prerogative of the Grand Master is that of visitation.
He has a right to visit any lodge within his jurisdiction at such times as
he pleases, and when there to preside; and it is the duty of the Master to
offer him the chair and his gavel, which the Grand Master may decline or
accept at his pleasure. This prerogative admits of no question, as it is
distinctly declared in the first of the Thirty-nine Regulations, adopted
in 1721, in the following words:—
"The Grand Master or Deputy has full authority and right, not only to
be present, but to preside in every lodge, with the Master of the lodge on
his left hand, and to order his Grand Wardens to attend him, who are not
to act as Wardens of particular lodges, but in his presence and at his
command; for the Grand Master, while in a particular lodge, may command
the Wardens of that lodge, or any other Master Masons, to act as his
Wardens, pro tempore."
But in a subsequent regulation it was provided, that as the Grand
Master cannot deprive the Grand Wardens of that office without the consent
of the Grand Lodge, he should appoint no other persons to act as Wardens
in his visitation to a private lodge, unless the Grand Wardens were
absent. This whole regulation is still in existence.
The question has been lately mooted, whether, if the Grand Master
declines to preside, he does not thereby place himself in the position of
a private Brother, and become subject, as all the others present, to the
control of the Worshipful Master. I answer, that of course he becomes
subject to and must of necessity respect those rules of order and decorum
which are obligatory on all good men and Masons; but that he cannot, by
the exercise of an act of courtesy in declining to preside, divest himself
of his prerogative, which, moreover, he may at any time during the evening
assume, and demand the gavel. The Grand Master of Masons can, under no
circumstances, become subject to the decrees and orders of the Master of a
particular lodge.
IV. Another prerogative of the Grand Master is that of appointment;
which, however, in this country, has been much diminished. According to
the old regulations, and the custom is still continued in the
Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of England, the Grand Master has the
right of appointing his Deputy and Wardens. In the United States, the
office has been shorn of this high prerogative, and these Officers are
elected by the Grand Lodge. The Deputy, however, is still appointed by the
Grand Master, in some of the States, as Massachusetts, North Carolina,
Wisconsin, and Texas. The appointment of the principal subordinate
officers, is also given to the Grand Master by the American Grand
Lodges.
V. The last and most extraordinary power of the Grand Master, is that
of making Masons at sight.
The power to "make Masons at sight" is a technical term, which may be
defined to be the power to initiate, pass, and raise candidates by the
Grand Master, in a lodge of emergency, or as it is called in the Book of
Constitutions, "an occasional lodge," especially convened by him, and
consisting of such Master Masons as he may call together for that purpose
only—the lodge ceasing to exist as soon as the initiation, passing, or
raising, has been accomplished and the Brethren have been dismissed by the
Grand Master.
Whether such a power is vested in the Grand Master, is a question that,
within the last few years, has been agitated with much warmth, by some of
the Grand Lodges of this country; but I am not aware that, until very
lately, the prerogative was ever disputed.18
In the Book of Constitutions, however, several instances are furnished
of the exercise of this right by various Grand Masters.
In 1731, Lord Lovel being Grand Master, he "formed an occasional lodge
at Houghton Hall, Sir Robert Walpole's House in Norfolk," and there made
the Duke of Lorraine, afterwards Emperor of Germany, and the Duke of
Newcastle, Master Masons.19
I do not quote the case of the initiation, passing, and raising of
Frederick, Prince of Wales, in 1737, which was done in "an occasional
lodge," over which Dr. Desaguliers presided,20
because as Desaguliers was not the Grand Master, nor even, as has been
incorrectly stated by the New York Committee of Correspondence, Deputy
Grand Master, but only a Past Grand Master, it cannot be called a
making at sight. He most probably acted under the dispensation of the
Grand Master, who at that time was the Earl of Darnley.
But in 1766, Lord Blaney, who was then Grand Master, convened "an
occasional lodge" and initiated, passed, and raised the Duke of
Gloucester.21
Again in 1767, John Salter, the Deputy, then acting as Grand Master,
convened "an occasional lodge," and conferred the three degrees on the
Duke of Cumberland.22
In 1787, the Prince of Wales was made a Mason "at an occasional lodge,
convened," says Preston, "for the purpose, at the Star and Garter, Pall
Mall, over which the Duke of Cumberland, (Grand Master) presided in
person."23
But it is unnecessary to multiply instances of the right, exercised by
former Grand Masters, of congregating occasional lodges, and making Masons
at sight. It has been said, however, by the oppugners of this prerogative,
that these "occasional lodges" were only special communications of the
Grand Lodge, and the "makings" are thus supposed to have taken place under
the authority of that body, and not of the Grand Master. The facts,
however, do not sustain this position. Throughout the Book of
Constitutions, other meetings, whether regular or special, are distinctly
recorded as meetings of the Grand Lodge, while these "occasional lodges"
appear only to have been convened by the Grand Master, for the purpose of
making Masons. Besides, in many instances, the lodge was held at a
different place from that of the Grand Lodge, and the officers were not,
with the exception of the Grand Master, the officers of the Grand Lodge.
Thus the occasional lodge, which initiated the Duke of Lorraine, was held
at the residence of Sir Robert Walpole, in Norfolk, while the Grand Lodge
always met in London. In 1766, the Grand Lodge held its communications at
the Crown and Anchor; but the occasional lodge, which, in the same year,
conferred the degrees on the Duke of Gloucester, was convened at the Horn
Tavern. In the following year, the lodge which initiated the Duke of
Cumberland was convened at the Thatched House Tavern, the Grand Lodge
continuing to meet at the Crown and Anchor.
This may be considered very conclusive evidence of the existence of the
prerogative of the Grand Master, which we are now discussing, but the
argument à fortiori, drawn from his dispensing power, will tend to
confirm the doctrine.
No one doubts or denies the power of the Grand Master to constitute new
lodges by dispensation. In 1741, the Grand Lodge of England forgot it for
a moment, and adopted a new regulation, that no new lodge should be
constituted until the consent of the Grand Lodge had been first obtained,
"But this order, afterwards appearing," says the Book of
Constitutions,24
"to be an infringement on the prerogative of the Grand Master, and to be
attended with many inconveniences and with damage to the craft, was
repealed."
It is, then, an undoubted prerogative of the Grand Master to constitute
lodges by dispensation, and in these lodges, so constituted, Masons may be
legally entered, passed, and raised. This is done every day. Seven Master
Masons, applying to the Grand Master, he grants them a dispensation, under
authority of which they proceed to open and hold a lodge, and to make
Masons. This lodge is, however, admitted to be the mere creature of the
Grand Master, for it is in his power, at any time, to revoke the
dispensation he had granted, and thus to dissolve the lodge.
But, if the Grand Master has the power thus to enable others to confer
the degrees and make Masons by his individual authority out of his
presence, are we not permitted to argue à fortiori that he has also
the right of congregating seven Brethren and causing a Mason, to be made
in his sight? Can he delegate a power to others which he does not himself
possess? And is his calling together "an occasional lodge," and making,
with the assistance of the Brethren thus assembled, a Mason "at sight,"
that is to say, in his presence, anything more or less than the exercise
of his dispensing power, for the establishment of a lodge under
dispensation, for a temporary period, and for a special purpose. The
purpose having been effected, and the Mason having been made, he revokes
his dispensation, and the lodge is dismissed. If we assumed any other
ground than this, we should be compelled to say, that though the Grand
Master might authorise others to make Masons, when he was absent, as in
the usual case of lodges under dispensation yet the instant that he
attempted to convey the same powers to be exercised in his presence, and
under his personal supervision, his authority would cease. This course of
reasoning would necessarily lead to a contradiction in terms, if not to an
actual absurdity.
It is proper to state, in conclusion, that the views here set forth are
not entertained by the very able Committee of Foreign Correspondence of
the Grand Lodge of Florida, who only admit the power of the Grand Master
to make Masons in the Grand Lodge. On the other hand, the Grand Lodge of
Wisconsin, at its last communication, adopted a report, asserting "that
the Grand Master has the right to make Masons at sight, in cases which he
may deem proper"—and the Committee of Correspondence of New York declares,
that "since the time when the memory of man runneth not to the contrary,
Grand Masters have enjoyed the privilege of making Masons at sight,
without any preliminaries, and at any suitable time or place."
The opinions of the two last quoted Grand Lodges embody the general
sentiment of the Craft on this subject.25
But although the prerogative is thus almost universally ceded to Grand
Masters, there are many very reasonable doubts as to the expediency of its
exercise, except under extraordinary circumstances of emergency.
In England, the practice has generally been confined to the making of
Princes of the Royal Family, who, for reasons of state, were unwilling to
reduce themselves to the level of ordinary candidates and receive their
initiation publicly in a subordinate lodge.
But in the exercise of this prerogative, the Grand Master cannot
dispense with any of the requisite forms of initiation, prescribed by the
oral laws of the Order. He cannot communicate the degrees, but must adhere
to all the established ceremonies—the conferring of degrees by
"communication" being a form unknown to the York rite. He must be assisted
by the number of Brethren necessary to open and hold a lodge. Due inquiry
must be made into the candidate's character, (though the Grand Master may,
as in a case of emergency, dispense with the usual probation of a month).
He cannot interfere with the business of a regular lodge, by making one
whom it had rejected, nor finishing one which it had commenced. Nor can he
confer the three degrees, at one and the same communication. In short, he
must, in making Masons at sight, conform to the ancient usages and
landmarks of the Order.
The office of Deputy Grand Master is one of great dignity, but not of
much practical importance, except in case of the absence of the Grand
Master, when he assumes all the prerogatives of that officer. Neither is
the office, comparatively speaking, of a very ancient date. At the first
reorganization of the Grand Lodge in 1717, and for two or three years
afterwards, no Deputy was appointed, and it was not until 1721 that the
Duke of Montagu conferred the dignity on Dr. Beal. Originally the Deputy
was intended to relieve the Grand Master of all the burden and pressure of
business, and the 36th of the Regulations, adopted in 1721, states that "a
Deputy is said to have been always needful when the Grand Master was nobly
born," because it was considered as a derogation from the dignity of a
nobleman to enter upon the ordinary business of the craft. Hence we find,
among the General Regulations, one which sets forth this principle in the
following words:
"The Grand Master should not receive any private intimations of
business, concerning Masons and Masonry, but from his Deputy first, except
in such cases as his worship can easily judge of; and if the application
to the Grand Master be irregular, his worship can order the Grand Wardens,
or any other so applying, to wait upon the Deputy, who is immediately to
prepare the business, and to lay it orderly before his worship."
The Deputy Grand Master exercises, in the absence of the Grand Master,
all the prerogatives and performs all the duties of that officer. But he
does so, not by virtue of any new office that he has acquired by such
absence, but simply in the name of and as the representative of the Grand
Master, from whom alone he derives all his authority. Such is the doctrine
sustained in all the precedents recorded in the Book of Constitutions.
In the presence of the Grand Master, the office of Deputy is merely one
of honour, without the necessity of performing any duties, and without the
power of exercising any prerogatives.
There cannot be more than one Deputy Grand Master in a jurisdiction; so
that the appointment of a greater number, as is the case in some of the
States, is a manifest innovation on the ancient usages. District Deputy
Grand Masters, which officers are also a modern invention of this country,
seem to take the place in some degree of the Provincial Grand Masters of
England, but they are not invested with the same prerogatives. The office
is one of local origin, and its powers and duties are prescribed by the
local regulations of the Grand Lodge which may have established
it.
The Senior and Junior Grand Wardens were originally appointed, like the
Deputy, by the Grand Master, and are still so appointed in England; but in
this country they are universally elected by the Grand Lodge. Their duties
do not materially differ from those performed by the corresponding
officers in a subordinate lodge. They accompany the Grand Master in his
visitations, and assume the stations of the Wardens of the lodge
visited.
According to the regulations of 1721, the Master of the oldest lodge
present was directed to take the chair of the Grand Lodge in the absence
of both the Grand Master and Deputy; but this was found to be an
interference with the rights of the Grand Wardens, and it was therefore
subsequently declared that, in the absence of the Grand Master and Deputy,
the last former Grand Master or Deputy should preside. But if no Past
Grand or Past Deputy Grand Master should be present, then the Senior Grand
Warden was to fill the chair, and, in his absence, the Junior Grand
Warden, and lastly, in absence of both these, then the oldest
Freemason26
who is the present Master of a lodge. In this country, however, most of
the Grand Lodges have altered this regulation, and the Wardens succeed
according to seniority to the chair of the absent Grand Master and Deputy,
in preference to any Past Grand Officer.
The office of Grand Treasurer was first established in 1724, in
consequence of a report of the Committee of Charity of the Grand Lodge of
England. But no one was found to hold the trust until the 24th of June,
1727, when, at the request of the Grand Master, the appointment was
accepted by Nathaniel Blackerby, Deputy Grand Master. The duties of the
office do not at all differ from those of a corresponding one in every
other society; but as the trust is an important one in a pecuniary view,
it has generally been deemed prudent that it should only be committed to
"a brother of good worldly substance," whose ample means would place him
beyond the chances of temptation.
The office of Grand Treasurer has this peculiarity, that while all the
other officers below the Grand Master were originally, and still are in
England, appointed, that alone was always elective.
This is one of the most important offices in the Grand Lodge, and
should always be occupied by a Brother of intelligence and education,
whose abilities may reflect honor on the institution of which he is the
accredited public organ. The office was established in the year 1723,
during the Grand Mastership of the Duke of Wharton, previous to which time
the duties appear to have been discharged by the Grand Wardens.
The Grand Secretary not only records the proceedings of the Grand
Lodge, but conducts its correspondence, and is the medium through whom all
applications on masonic subjects are to be made to the Grand Master, or
the Grand Lodge.
According to the regulations of the Grand Lodges of England, New York
and South Carolina, the Grand Secretary may appoint an assistant, who is
not, however, by virtue of such appointment, a member of the Grand Lodge.
The same privilege is also extended in South Carolina to the Grand
Treasurer.
This is the last of the Grand Offices that was established, having been
instituted on the 1st of May, in the year 1775. The duties are confined to
the reading of prayers, and other sacred portions of the ritual, in
consecrations, dedications, funeral services, etc. The office confers no
masonic authority at all, except that of a seat and a vote in the Grand
Lodge.
But little need be said of the Grand Deacons. Their duties correspond
to those of the same officers in subordinate lodges. The office of the
Deacons, even in a subordinate lodge, is of comparatively modern
institution. Dr. Oliver remarks that they are not mentioned in any of the
early Constitutions of Masonry, nor even so late as 1797, when Stephen
Jones wrote his "Masonic Miscellanies," and he thinks it "satisfactorily
proved that Deacons were not considered necessary, in working the business
of a lodge, before the very latter end of the eighteenth century."27
But although the Deacons are not mentioned in the various works
published previous to that period, which are quoted by Dr. Oliver, it is
nevertheless certain that the office existed at a time much earlier than
that which he supposes. In a work in my possession, and which is now lying
before me, entitled "Every Young Man's Companion, etc., by W. Gordon,
Teacher of the Mathematics," sixth edition printed at London, in 1777,
there is a section, extending from page 413 to page 426, which is
dedicated to the subject of Freemasonry and to a description of the
working of a subordinate lodge. Here the Senior and Junior Deacons are
enumerated among the officers, their exact positions described and their
duties detailed, differing in no respect from the explanations of our own
ritual at the present day. The positive testimony of this book must of
course outweigh the negative testimony of the authorities quoted by
Oliver, and shows the existence in England of Deacons in the year 1777 at
least.
It is also certain that the office of Deacon claims an earlier origin
in America than the "very latter end of the eighteenth century;" and, as
an evidence of this, it may be stated that, in the "Ahiman Rezon" of
Pennsylvania, published in 1783, the Grand Deacons are named among the
officers of the Grand Lodge, "as particular assistants to the Grand Master
and Senior Warden, in conducting the business of the Lodge." They are to
be found in all Grand Lodges of the York Rite, and are usually appointed,
the Senior by the Grand Master, and the Junior by the Senior Grand
Warden.
The Grand Marshal, as an officer of convenience, existed from an
early period. We find him mentioned in the procession of the Grand Lodge,
made in 1731, where he is described as carrying "a truncheon, blue, tipped
with gold," insignia which he still retains. He takes no part in the usual
work of the Lodge; but his duties are confined to the proclamation of the
Grand Officers at their installation, and to the arrangement and
superintendence of public processions.
The Grand Marshal is usually appointed by the Grand Master.
The first mention that is made of Stewards is in the Old Regulations,
adopted in 1721. Previous to that time, the arrangements of the Grand
Feast were placed in the hands of the Grand Wardens; and it was to relieve
them of this labor that the regulation was adopted, authorizing the Grand
Master, or his Deputy, to appoint a certain number of Stewards, who were
to act in concert with the Grand Wardens. In 1728, it was ordered that the
number of Stewards to be appointed should be twelve. In 1731, a regulation
was adopted, permitting the Grand Stewards to appoint their successors.
And, in 1735, the Grand Lodge ordered, that, "in consideration of their
past service and future usefulness," they should be constituted a Lodge of
Masters, to be called the Stewards' Lodge, which should have a registry in
the Grand Lodge list, and exercise the privilege of sending twelve
representatives. This was the origin of that body now known in the
Constitutions of the Grand Lodges of England and New York,28
as the Grand Stewards' Lodge, although it has been very extensively
modified in its organization. In New York, it is now no more than a
Standing Committee of the Grand Lodge; and in England, although it is
regularly constituted, as a Lodge of Master Masons, it is by a special
regulation deprived of all power of entering, passing, or raising Masons.
In other jurisdictions, the office of Grand Stewards is still preserved,
but their functions are confined to their original purpose of preparing
and superintending the Grand Feast.
The appointment of the Grand Stewards should be most appropriately
vested in the Junior Grand Warden.
Grand Sword-Bearer.—It was an ancient feudal custom, that all
great dignitaries should have a sword of state borne before them, as the
insignia of their dignity. This usage has to this day been preserved in
the Masonic Institution, and the Grand Master's sword of state is still
borne in all public processions by an officer specially appointed for that
purpose. Some years after the reorganization of the Grand Lodge of
England, the sword was borne by the Master of the Lodge to which it
belonged; but, in 1730, the Duke of Norfolk, being then Grand Master,
presented to the Grand Lodge the sword of Gustavus Adolphus, King of
Sweden, which had afterwards been used in war by Bernard, Duke of Saxe
Weimar, and which the Grand Master directed should thereafter be adopted
as his sword of state. In consequence of this donation, the office of
Grand Sword-Bearer was instituted in the following year. The office is
still retained; but some Grand Lodges have changed the name to that of
Grand Pursuivant.
It is evident from the Constitutions of Masonry, as well as from the
peculiar character of the institution, that the office of Grand Tiler must
have existed from the very first organization of a Grand Lodge. As, from
the nature of the duties that he has to perform, the Grand Tiler is
necessarily excluded from partaking of the discussions, or witnessing the
proceedings of the Grand Lodge, it has very generally been determined,
from a principle of expediency, that he shall not be a member of the Grand
Lodge during the term of his office.
The Grand Tiler is sometimes elected by the Grand Lodge, and sometimes
appointed by the Grand Master.
The necessary and usual officers of a Grand Lodge having been
described, the rights, powers, and prerogatives of such a body is the next
subject of our inquiry.
The foundation-stone, upon which the whole superstructure of masonic
authority in the Grand Lodge is built, is to be found in that conditional
clause annexed to the thirty-eight articles, adopted in 1721 by the Masons
of England, and which is in these words:
"Every annual Grand Lodge has an inherent power and authority to make
new regulations, or to alter these for the real benefit of this ancient
fraternity; PROVIDED ALWAYS THAT THE OLD LANDMARKS BE CAREFULLY PRESERVED;
and that such alterations and new regulations be proposed and agreed to at
the third quarterly communication preceding the annual Grand Feast; and
that they be offered also to the perusal of all the Brethren before
dinner, in writing, even of the youngest Entered Apprentice: the
approbation and consent of the majority of all the Brethren present being
absolutely necessary, to make the same binding and obligatory."
The expression which is put in capitals—"provided always that the old
landmarks be carefully preserved"—is the limiting clause which must be
steadily borne in mind, whenever we attempt to enumerate the powers of a
Grand Lodge. It must never be forgotten (in the words of another
regulation, adopted in 1723, and incorporated in the ritual of
installation), that "it is not in the power of any man, or body of men, to
make any alteration or innovation in the body of Masonry."
"With these views to limit us, the powers of a Grand Lodge may be
enumerated in the language which has been adopted in the modern
constitutions of England, and which seem to us, after a careful
comparison, to be as comprehensive and correct as any that we have been
able to examine. This enumeration is in the following language:
"In the Grand Lodge, alone, resides the power of enacting laws and
regulations for the permanent government of the craft, and of altering,
repealing, and abrogating them, always taking care that the ancient
landmarks of the order are preserved. The Grand Lodge has also the
inherent power of investigating, regulating, and deciding all matters
relative to the craft, or to particular lodges, or to individual Brothers,
which it may exercise either of itself, or by such delegated authority, as
in its wisdom and discretion it may appoint; but in the Grand Lodge alone
resides the power of erasing lodges, and expelling Brethren from the
craft, a power which it ought not to delegate to any subordinate authority
in England."
In this enumeration we discover the existence of three distinct classes
of powers:—1, a legislative power; 2, a judicial power; and 3, an
executive power. Each of these will occupy a separate section.
In the passage already quoted from the Constitutions of the Grand Lodge
of England it is said, "in the Grand Lodge, alone, resides the power of
enacting laws and regulations for the government of the craft, and of
altering, repealing, and abrogating them." General regulations for the
government of the whole craft throughout the world can no longer be
enacted by a Grand Lodge. The multiplication of these bodies, since the
year 1717, has so divided the supremacy that no regulation now enacted can
have the force and authority of those adopted by the Grand Lodge of
England in 1721, and which now constitute a part of the fundamental law of
Masonry, and as such are unchangeable by any modern Grand Lodge.
Any Grand Lodge may, however, enact local laws for the direction of its
own special affairs, and has also the prerogative of enacting the
regulations which are to govern all its subordinates and the craft
generally in its own jurisdiction. From this legislative power, which
belongs exclusively to the Grand Lodge, it follows that no subordinate
lodge can make any new bye-laws, nor alter its old ones, without the
approval and confirmation of the Grand Lodge. Hence, the rules and
regulations of every lodge are inoperative until they are submitted to and
approved by the Grand Lodge. The confirmation of that body is the enacting
clause; and, therefore, strictly speaking, it may be said that the
subordinates only propose the bye-laws, and the Grand Lodge enacts
them.
The passage already quoted from the English Constitutions continues to
say, that "the Grand Lodge has the inherent power of investigating,
regulating and deciding all matters relative to the craft, or to
particular lodges, or to individual Brothers, which it may exercise,
either of itself, or by such delegated authority as in its wisdom and
discretion it may appoint." Under the first clause of this section, the
Grand Lodge is constituted as the Supreme Masonic Tribunal of its
jurisdiction. But as it would be impossible for that body to investigate
every masonic offense that occurs within its territorial limits, with that
full and considerate attention that the principles of justice require, it
has, under the latter clause of the section, delegated this duty, in
general, to the subordinate lodges, who are to act as its committees, and
to report the results of their inquiry for its final disposition. From
this course of action has risen the erroneous opinion of some persons,
that the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge is only appellate in its
character. Such is not the case. The Grand Lodge possesses an original
jurisdiction over all causes occurring within its limits. It is only for
expediency that it remits the examination of the merits of any case to a
subordinate lodge as a quasi committee. It may, if it thinks
proper, commence the investigation of any matter concerning either a
lodge, or an individual brother within its own bosom, and whenever an
appeal from the decision of a lodge is made, which, in reality, is only a
dissent from the report of the lodge, the Grand Lodge does actually
recommence the investigation de novo, and, taking the matter out of
the lodge, to whom by its general usage it had been primarily referred, it
places it in the hands of another committee of its own body for a new
report. The course of action is, it is true, similar to that in law, of an
appeal from an inferior to a superior tribunal. But the principle is
different. The Grand Lodge simply confirms or rejects the report that has
been made to it, and it may do that without any appeal having been
entered. It may, in fact, dispense with the necessity of an investigation
by and report from a subordinate lodge altogether, and undertake the trial
itself from the very inception. But this, though a constitutional, is an
unusual course. The subordinate lodge is the instrument which the Grand
Lodge employs in considering the investigation. It may or it may not make
use of the instrument, as it pleases.
The English Constitutions conclude, in the passage that has formed the
basis of our previous remarks, by asserting that "in the Grand Lodge,
alone, resides the power of erasing lodges and expelling Brethren from the
craft, a power which it ought not to delegate to any subordinate
authority." The power of the Grand Lodge to erase lodges is accompanied
with a coincident power of constituting new lodges. This power it
originally shared with the Grand Master, and still does in England; but in
this country the power of the Grand Lodge is paramount to that of the
Grand Master. The latter can only constitute lodges temporarily, by
dispensation, and his act must be confirmed, or may be annulled by the
Grand Lodge. It is not until a lodge has received its Warrant of
Constitution from the Grand Lodge, that it can assume the rank and
exercise the prerogatives of a regular and legal lodge.
The expelling power is one that is very properly intrusted to the Grand
Lodge, which is the only tribunal that should impose a penalty affecting
the relations of the punished party with the whole fraternity. Some of the
lodges in this country have claimed the right to expel independently of
the action of the Grand Lodge. But the claim is founded on an erroneous
assumption of powers that have never existed, and which are not recognized
by the ancient constitutions, nor the general usages of the fraternity. A
subordinate lodge tries its delinquent member, under the provisions which
have already been stated, and, according to the general usage of lodges in
the United States, declares him expelled. But the sentence is of no force
nor effect until it has been confirmed by the Grand Lodge, which may, or
may not, give the required confirmation, and which, indeed, often refuses
to do so, but actually reverses the sentence. It is apparent, from the
views already expressed on the judicial powers of the Grand Lodge, that
the sentence of expulsion uttered by the subordinate is to be taken in the
sense of a recommendatory report, and that it is the confirmation and
adoption of that report by the Grand Lodge that alone gives it vitality
and effect.
The expelling power presumes, of course, coincidently, the reinstating
power. As the Grand Lodge alone can expel, it also alone can
reinstate.
These constitute the general powers and prerogatives of a Grand Lodge.
Of course there are other local powers, assumed by various Grand Lodges,
and differing in the several jurisdictions, but they are all derived from
some one of the three classes that we have enumerated. From these views,
it will appear that a Grand Lodge is the supreme legislative, judicial,
and executive authority of the Masonic jurisdiction in which it is
situated. It is, to use a feudal term, "the lord paramount" in Masonry. It
is a representative body, in which, however, it constituents have
delegated everything and reserved no rights to themselves. Its authority
is almost unlimited, for it is restrained by but a single check:—It
cannot alter or remove the ancient landmarks.
FOOTNOTES
4. The Gothic Constitutions are that code of laws which was adopted by
the General Assembly at York, in the year 926. They are no longer extant,
but portions of them have been preserved by Anderson, Preston, and other
writers.
5. Preston, book iv., sec, 2., p. 132, n. (U.M.L.,vol. iii., p.
109).
6. General Regulations, art. xxxix.
7. Chancellor Walworth, in his profound argument on the New York
difficulties, asserted that this fact "does not distinctly appear,
although it is, pretty evident that all voted."—p. 33. The language of
Anderson does not, however, admit of a shadow of a doubt. "The Brethren,"
he says, "by a majority of hands, elected," &c.
8. Opinion of Chancellor Walworth upon the questions connected with the
late masonic difficulties in the State of New York, p. 37. There is much
historical learning displayed in this little pamphlet.
9. Preston, p. 131, n., Oliver's Edit. (U.M.L., vol. iii.,p.
109).
10. Of the thirty-six Grand Masters who have presided over the craft in
England since the revival of Masonry in 1717, thirty have been noblemen,
and three princes of the reigning family.
11. Article xxxiv.
12. His most important prerogatives are inherent or derived from
ancient usage.
13. Proceedings G.L. Maryland, 1849, p. 25.
14. Art. xxxix.
15. The word "time" has been interpreted to mean
communication.
16. And this is not because such past officer has an inherent right to
the mastership, but because as long as such an one is present and willing
to serve, there does not exist such an emergency as would authorize a
dispensation of the law.
17. What further concerns a lodge under dispensation is referred to a
special chapter in a subsequent part of the work.
18. It is well known, although it cannot be quoted as authority, that
the Athol Constitutions expressly acknowledged the existence of this
prerogative. See Dermott's Ahiman Rezon.
19. Book of Constitutions, edit. 1767, p. 222.
20. Book of Const., p. 233.
21. Book of Const., p. 313.
22. Book of Constitutions, p. 319.
23. Preston, p. 237, ed. 1802, (U.M.L., vol. iii., p. 223).
24. Book of Constitutions, p. 247
25. The existence of this prerogative is denied by the Grand Lodges of
Missouri, Tennessee, Louisiana, and Massachusetts, while it is admitted by
those of New York, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Wisconsin,
Vermont, Mississippi, Ohio, New Hampshire, Maryland, Indiana, Texas and
Florida; in the last two, however, subject to limitation.
26. That is, the one who has longest been a Freemason.
27. Book of the Lodge, p. 115 (U.M.L., vol. i., book 2, p.
78).
28. It was abolished in New York in 1854.
back to top |
