SECTION I.

THE GRAND MASTER.
The office of Grand Master is one of such anti« quity as to be coeval with the very origin of the institution, whether we look at that origin in a tra- ditional or in an historical point of view. There never has been a time in which the Order has not been governed by a chief presiding officer under this name.
From this fact we derive the important principle that the office of Grand Master is independent of the Grand Lodge, and that all his prerogatives and duties, so far as they are connected generally with the craft, are inherent in the office, and not derived from, nor amenable to, any modern Constitutions.*
The whole records of our written and traditional history show, that Grand Masters have repeatedly existed without a Grand Lodge, but never a Grand Lodge without a Grand Master. And this is be- cause the connection of the Grand Master is essen- tially with the craft at large, and only incidentally with the Grand Lodge. He is neither elected, in- stalled, nor saluted as the " Grand Master of the Grand Lodge/7 but as the " Grand Master of Masons ;J?f and if the institution, so far as relates to
* " The claim that the Grand Master is the creature of the Grand Lodge is contrary to recorded history, and to every tradition on this subject that is contained in the arcana of Masoniy." — Com. of For. Corresp. G. L. of N. Y., 1854, p. 107.
f Thus, in 1724, we find it recorded that " Brother Dalkeith stood up, and bowing to the assembly, thanked them for the honor he had of being their
GRAND MASTER. 447
its present organization, was again to be resolved into the condition which it occupied previous to the year 1717, and the Grand Lodge were to be abolished, in consequence of the resumption by the subordinate Lodges of their original prerogatives, the office of Grand Master would be unaffected by such revolution, and that officer would still remain in possession of all his powers, because his office is inseparable from the existence of the fraternity. and he would be annually elected as formerly, by the craft in their " General Assembly." In accord- ance with these views, we find Anderson recording that in the year 926, at the city of York, Prince Edwin, as Grand Master, summoned the craft, who then " composed a Grand Lodge, of which he was the Grand Master." The Grand Lodge did not constitute him as their Grand Master, for the ap- pointment of Grand Master, according to the record7 preceded the organization of the Grand Lodge.
Again : both 'Anderson and Preston show us a long list of Grand Masters who were not even elected by the Grand Lodge, but held their appoint- ment from the King. In 1683, a Regulation was adopted, declaring " that, for the future, the frater- nity 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 an- nual General Assembly," which Assembly, it must
Grand Master, and then proclaimed aloud the most noble Prince and ouz Brother, Charles Lennox, Duke of Eichmond and Lennox, Grand Masteb of Masons !" and so on throughout the Book of Constitutions.
448 GRAND MASTER.
bo recollected, was not, as now, a Grand Lodge, consisting of the representatives of Lodges, but a mass meeting of all the members of the craft. Again : an attentive perusal of the history of the present organization of Grand Lodges on St. John the Baptist's day, 1717, will show that the craft first, in General Assembly, elected their Grand Master, who then appointed his Wardens, and estab- lished a Grand Lodge, by summoning the Masters and Wardens of the Lodges to meet him in quar- terly communication. In short, everything of an authentic nature in the history of Masonry shows that the Grand Master is the officer and the organ of the craft in general, and not of the Grand Lodge, and that although for purposes of convenience, the fraternity have, for the last one hundred and thirty- five years, conceded to their Masters and Wardens in Grand Lodge convened the privilege of electing him for them, such concession does not impair his rights, nor destroy the intimate and immediate con- nection which exists between him and the craft at large, to whom alone he can be said to have any rightful responsibility.
All of this very clearly shows — and this is, I think, the general opinion of Masonic jurists — that, with the exception of a few unimportant powers, conferred for local purposes, by various Grand Lodges, and which necessarily differ in different jurisdictions, every prerogative exercised by a Grand Master is an inherent one — that is to say, not created by any special statute of the Grand
GRAND MASTER. 449
Lodge, but the result and the concomitant of his high office, whose duties and prerogatives existed long before the organization of Grand Lodges.
The responsibility of the Grand Master presents itself as the next important question. Invested with these high an I inalienable functions, to whom is he responsible fcr their faithful discharge, and by whom and how is he to be punished for his official misdemeanors ? These are important and difficult questions, which have occupied the attention and divided the opinions of the most eminent Masonic jurists.
It is not to be doubted that the Grand Master is not an irresponsible officer. To deny this broad principle would be to destroy the very foundations on which the whole system of Masonic legislation is built. Democratic as it is in its tendencies, and giving to every member a voice in the government of the institution, it has always sustained the great doctrine of responsibility as the conservative ele- ment in its system of polity. The individual Mason is governed by his Lodge ; the Master is controlled by the Grand Lodge ; the Grand Lodge is restrained by the ancient Landmarks : and if the Grand Mas- ter were not also responsible to some superior power, he alone would be the exception to that perfect adjustment of balances which pervades and directs the whole machinery of Masonic govern- ment.
The theory on this subject appears to me to be. that the Grand Master is responsible to the crafi
450 GRAND MASTER.
for the faithful performance of the duties of his office. I can entertain no doubt that originally ii was competent for any General Assembly to enter- tain jurisdiction over" the Grand Master, because, until the year 1717, the General Assembly was the whole body of the craft, and as such, was the only body possessing general judicial powers in the Order ; and if he was not responsible to it, then lie must of necessity have been altogether without responsibility ; and this would have made the government of the institution despotic, which is directly contrary to the true features of its policy.
How this jurisdiction of the craft in their General Assembly was to be exercised over the Grand Mas- ter, we have no means of determining, since the records of the Order furnish us with no precedent. But we may suppose that in the beginning, when Grand Masters were appointed by the reigning monarch, that jurisdiction, if necessary, would have been exercised by way of petition or remonstrance to the king, and this view is supported by the phraseology of the Constitutions of 926, which say, that " in ail ages to come, the existing General Assembly shall petition the king to confer his sanc- tion on their proceedings.'7
As the power of deposition or other punishment vras vested, in those early days, in the reigning monarch, because he was the appointer of the Grand Master, it follows, by a parity of reasoning, that when the appointment was bestowed upon the
GRAND MASTER. 451
General Assembly, the power of punishment was vested in that body also.
But in the course of time, the General Assembly of the craft gave way to the Grand Lodge, which is not a congregation of the craft in their primary capacity, but a congregation of certain officers in their representative capacity. And we find that in the year 1717, the Masons delegated the powers which they originally possessed to the Grand Lodge, to be exercised by their Masters and Wardens, in trust for themselves. Among these powers which were thus delegated, was that of exercising penal jurisdiction over the Grand Master. The fact that this power was delegated, is not left to conjecture ; for, among the Regulations adopted in 1721, we find one which recognizes the prerogative in these emphatic words : " If the Grand Master should abuse his power, and render himself unworthy of the obedience and subjection of the Lodges, he shall be treated in a way and manner to be agreed upon in a new Regulation, because hitherto the ancient fra- ternity have had no occasion for it — their former Grand Masters having all behaved themselves worthy of that honorable office.'7*
This article comprises three distinct statements ; first, that the Grand Master is responsible for any abuse of his power ; secondly, that a Regulation may at any time be made to provide the mode of exercising jurisdiction over him ; and lastly, that such Regulation never has been made, simply be-
* Regulations of 1721, art xix.
452 GRAND MASTER.
cause there was no necessity for it, and not because there was no power to enact it.
Now, the method of making new Regulations is laid down in precise terms in the last of these very Regulations of 1721. The provisions are, that the Landmarks shall be preserved, and that the new Regulation be proposed and agreed to at the third quarterly communication preceding the annual Grand Feast, and that it be also offered to the perusal of all the brethren before dinner, in writing, even of the youngest Apprentice — the approbation and consent of the majority of all the brethren being absolutely necessary to make it binding and obligatory.
It is evident that a literal compliance with all the requisitions of this Regulation has now become al- together impracticable. Entered Apprentices have no longer, by general consent, any voice in the government of the Order, and quarterly communi- cations, as well as the annual Grand Feast, have almost everywhere been discontinued. Hence we must apply to the interpretation of this statute the benign principles of a liberal construction.* We can only endeavor substantially, and as much as possible in the spirit of the law, to carry out the in- tentions of those who framed the Regulation.
It seems to me, then, that these intentions will be obeyed for all necessary purposes, if a new Regula- tion be adopted at an annual meeting of the Grand
* " Benigne fnciendse sunt interpretationes et verba intentioni debent iu servire." — Law Maxim
GKAXD MASTER. 453
Lodge, and by the same majority which is required to amend or alter any clause of the Constitution.* The power to make new Regulations, which was claimed by the Grand Lodge of England in 1721, and afterwards reasserted in 1723, in still more ex- plicit terms, is equally vested in every other regu- larly organized Grand Lodge which has been since established, and which is, by virtue of its organiza- tion, the representative, in the limits of its own juris- diction, of the original Grand Lodge which met at the Apple-tree tavern in 1717.
With these preliminary observations, we are now prepared to enter upon an investigation of the pre- rogatives and duties of a Grand Master.
1. The Grand Master has the right to convene the Grand Lodge on any special occasion, at such time and place as he may deem expedient. The Constitution of the Grand Lodge necessarily must designate a time and place for the annual communi- cation, which it is not in the power of the Grand Master to change. But on the occurrence of any emergency, which may. in his opinion, render a special communication necessary, the Grand Master
* Bro. Albert Pike confirms this view in his admirable report on foreign correspondence in the Grand Lodge of Arkansas : " Every Grand Lodge can make any new regulation which changes no Landmark. The nineteenth article declares that a new regulation may be made on this subject. That being so, and the thirty-ninth declaring that none can be made to change a Landmark, of course this would not change a Landmark, or else it could not be made. We cannot doubt, then, that constitutional provisions might be made for dealing with a Grand Master during his terra of office ; but cer- tainly it could not be done in any other way." — Proc. G-. L. of Ark., 1854, p. 122.
454 GRAND MASTEE.
possesses the prerogative of convoking the Grand Lodge, and may select such time and place for the convocation as he deems most convenient or appro priate. This prerogative has been so repeatedly exercised by Grand Masters, from the earliest times to the present day, that it seems to be unnecessary to furnish any specific precedents out of the multi- tude that the most cursory reading of the old re- cords would supply.*
2. The Grand Master has the right to preside over every assembly of the craft, wheresoever and whensoever held. This is a Landmark of the Order,t and consequently the right of the Grand Master to preside at all meetings of the Grand Lodge, which is derived from it, is an inherent right, of which no constitutional provision can deprive him. From this prerogative is also derived the principle that the Grand Master may assume the chair of any private Lodge in which he may be present, and govern the Lodge as its Master. He is also, by virtue of the same prerogative, the chair- man of every committee of the Grand Lodge which he may choose to attend. He is, in brief, the head
* Thus, " Prince Edwin summoned all the Masons in the realm to meet him in a congregation at York." — Anderson, first edit., p. 32. On the occasion of Wharton's irregularities in 1722, Montagu, G. M., " summoned the Grand Lodge to meet, 17th January." — Ibid, second edit. p. 114. Carys- fort, G. M., in 1754, " signified his pleasure that the d;iy for the Grand Feast and election should be the 2.5th of March, instant, and kept at Drapers' Hall." — Ibid, third edit., p. 270. But a volume of such precedents might be lited. The eighteenth of the Regulations of 1721 distinctly recognizes the prerogative.— See ante p. 71.
t See ante Landmark 5, p. 21.
GRAND MASTER. 455
of the craft in Ms own jurisdiction, and cannot, at any meeting of the fraternity for Masonic purposes, be .placed, without his consent, in a subordinate position.
3. Concomitant with this prerogative of presid- ing in any Lodge, is that of visitation. This is not simply the right of visit, which every Master Mason in good standing possesses, and of which I have al- ready spoken in a preceding part of this work, but it is a prerogative of a more important nature, and which has received the distinctive appellation of the rigid of visitation. It is the right to enter any Lodge, to inspect its proceedings, to take a part in its business transactions, and to correct its errors.* The right is specifically recognized in the Regula- tions of 1721, but it is also an inherent prerogative ; for the Grand Master i$,virtute officii, the head of the whole fraternity, and is not only entitled, but bound, in the faithful discharge of his duty, to superintend the transactions of the craft, and to in- terfere in all congregations of Masons to prevent the commission of wrong, and to see that the Land- marks and usages of antiquity, and the Constitu- tions and laws of the Grand Lodge, and of every Lodge in the jurisdiction, are preserved and obeyed. The Regulations of 1721 prescribe that when the Grand Master makes such a visitation, the Grand Wardens are to attend him, and act as Wardens of the Lodge while he presides. This Regulation, however, rather refers to the rights of the Grand
* See Regulations of 1721. art. i.
456 GRAND MASTER.
Wardens than to the prerogative of the Grand Master,.whose right to make an official visitation to any Lodge is an inherent one, not to be limited or directed by any comparatively modern Regu- lation.
4. The right of appointment is another preroga- tive of the Grand Master. By the old usages — for I find no written law upon the subject — the Grand Master appointed the Deputy Grand Master, who is hence always styled " his Deputy." The Regula- tions of 1721 also gave him the nomination of the Grand Wardens, who were then to be installed, if the nomination was unanimously approved by the Grand Lodge, but if not, an election was to be held. The Grand Secretary, at the first establishment of the office in 1723, was elected by the Grand Lodge, but all subsequent appointments were made by the Grand Master. The Grand Treasurer was, how- ever, always an elective office.
In England, under its present Constitution, the Grand Master appoints all the officers of the Grand Lodge, except the Grand Treasurer. In America, the prerogative of appointment, which was vested by ancient usage in the Grand Master, has been greatly abridged, and is now restricted to the no- mination of some of the subordinate officers of the Grand Lodge. The Deputy, the Wardens, the Treasurer and Secretary are now elected by the Grand Lodge. In view of the fact that none of the officers of the Grand Lodge, except the Grand Mas- ter, owe their existence to a Landmark, but are al]
GRAND MASTER. 457
the creatures of regulations, adopted from time to time, and in view, too, of the other important fact that regulations on the subject were continually changing, so that we find an officer at one time ap- pointed, and at another time elected, I am con- strained to believe that the right of appointment is one of the few prerogatives of the Grand Master, which is not inherent in his office, but which is sub- ject to the regulation of the Grand Lodge.
5. The Twelfth Regulation of 1721 gave the Grand Master the prerogative of casting two votes in all questions before the Grand Lodge. The words of the Regulation are, it is true, very explicit, and would seem to leave no doubt upon its face ; and yet I am scarcely inclined to believe that under all circumstances that officer was permitted to vote twice, while every other member voted but once. Contemporaneous exposition, however, supplies no aid in the interpretation of the law ; for I have looked in vain through the earlier editions of the Book of Constitutions for any farther reference to the subject. The modern Grand Lodge of England retains the very words of the Old Regulations ; but in this country, where it has principally been pre- served by usage, it is so interpreted as that the Grand Master gives his second vote only in the case of a tie, and this, I suspect, was the object of the original law.
6. I come now to one of the most important pre- rogatives of a Grand Master, that, namely, of grant- ing dispensations. A dispensation may be defined
20
458 GRAND MASTER.
to be " the granting of a license, or the license it- self, to do what is forbidden by laws or regulations, or to omit something which is commanded : that is, the dispensing with a law or regulation, or the ex- emption of a particular person from the obligation to comply with its injunctions."* This power to dispense with the provisions of law in particular cases appears to be inherent in the Grand Master, because, although frequently referred to in the Old Eegulations, it always is as if it were a power al- ready in existence, and never by way of a new grant. There is no record of any Masonic statute or consti- tutional provision conferring this prerogative in distinct words. The instances, however, in which this prerogative may be exercised are clearly enu- merated in various places of the Old Constitutions, so that there can be no difficulty in understanding to what extent the prerogative extends.
Thus, one of the Regulations of 1721 prescribes that "no Lodge shall make more than five new brethren at one time ;"+ but the Grand Master may
* This is the definition of Webster, except that the word " regulation" has been substituted for " canon." Du Cange (Glossarium) defines a dis- pensation to be a prudent relaxation of a general law. JProvida juris com- munis relaxatio. While showing how much the ancient ecclesiastical authorities were opposed to the granting of dispensations, since they prefer- red to pardon the offense after the law had been violated, rather than to give a previous license for its violation, he adds, " but however much the Roman Pontiffs and most pious Bishops felt of reverence for the ancient Regulations, they were often compelled to depart in some measure from them, for the utility of the church ; and this milder method of acting, the jurists called a dispensation."
f Regulations of 1721, art. iv.
GRiND MASTER. 459
grant his dispensation to authorize any Lodge on a particular occasion to go beyond this number.
Again, in another Regulation it is enacted that " no man can be made or admitted a member of a particular Lodge without previous notice one month before ;"* but here the Grand Master may interfere with his dispensing power, and permit a candidate to be made without such previous notice.
Another Regulation prescribes that " no set or number of brethren shall withdraw or separate themselves from the Lodge in which they were made brethren, or were afterwards admitted members, unless the Lodge becomes too numerous, nor even then, without a dispensation."'!' But this Regula- tion has long since become obsolete, and Masons now demit from their Lodges without the necessity of asking a dispensation. In fact, as the law is no longer in force, no authority is needed to dispense with its injunctions.
The Twelfth Regulation of 1721 prescribes that none but members of the Grand Lodge shall be per- mitted to be present at its quarterly communica- tions, except by dispensation. The Grand Master is thus authorized to set aside the provisions of the law for the benefit of a particular individual, and this right of the Grand Master to admit strangers as visitors in the Grand Lodge is still recognized as one of his prerogatives.
Besides these particular instances of the exercise of the dispensing power which are referred to in
* Regulations of 1721, art. v. f Ibid art viii., ante p. 07.
460 GRAND MASTER.
the Old Regulations, there are many others which arise from the nature of the prerogative, and which Lave been sanctioned by immemorial usage.
Thus, when a Lodge has neglected to elect its officers at the constitutional time of election, or, having elected them, has failed to proceed to instal- lation, the Grand Master may, on application, issue his dispensation, authorizing the election or instal- lation to take place at some time subsequent to the constitutional period. And without such dispensa- tion, no election or installation could take place ; but the old officers would have to continue in office until the next regular time of election, for no Lodge can perform any act at any other time, or in any other mode, except that which is provided by its by-laws, or the Regulations of the Grand Lodge, unless in a particular case a dispensation is granted to set aside for the time the provisions of the law.
Again : although no one can serve as Master of a Lodge, unless he has previously acted as a Warden, yet in particular cases, as in the organization of a new Lodge, or when, in an old Lodge, no one who has been a Warden is willing to serve as Master, the Grand Master may grant his dispensation, em- powering the members to elect a Master from the floor.
But as it is a principle of the law that the benignity of the Grand Master must not affect the rights of third parties, no dispensation can issue for the election from the floor, if there be a Warden
GRAND MASTER. 461
or Past Warden who is willing to serve ; for eligi- oility to the chair is one of the prerogatives which arises from having served in the office of Warden, and a dispensation cannot set aside a prerogative.
By the operation of the same equitable principle, the Grand Master is prohibited from issuing a dis- pensation to authorize the initiation of a person who has been rejected by a Lodge ; for it is the inherent right of a Lodge to judge of the fitness of its own members, and the Grand Master cannot, by the exercise of his dispensing power, interfere with this inherent right.
7. Analogous to this dispensing power is the pre- rogative which the Grand Master possesses of authorizing Masons to congregate together and form a Lodge. According to the Regulations of 1721, and the modern Constitutions of England, the Grand Master has the power to grant warrants for the permanent establishment of Lodges, by warrant of constitution. But in this country this preroga- tive has not, for many years, been exercised by Grand Masters, who only grant their authority for the holding of Lodges temporarily, until the next communication of the Grand Lodge. Hence, as no Lodge can be legally held, except under a warrant of constitution, granted by a Grand Lodge, when the Grand Master permits such an assemblage, he suspends for a time the operation of the law ; and for this reason the document issued by him for this purpose is very appropriately called a dispensation, for it is simply a permission or license granted to
462 GRAND MASTER.
certain brethren to dispense with the law requiring a warrant, and to meet and work masonically with- out such an instrument.
8. Consequent upon and intimately connected with this dispensing power is that much contested prerogative of the Grand Master to make Masons at sight. I know of no principle' of Masonic law which has given rise to a greater diversity of opinions, or more elaborate argument on both sides, than this. While the Grand Lodges or the Com- mittees of Foreiga Correspondence of Indiana, Ken- tucky, Maryland, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New York, North and South Carolina, Vermont and Wisconsin, clearly admit the prerogative, those of California, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Missouri and Tennessee, as positively deny it, while Florida and Texas recognize its existence only under limited modifications. The weight of authority is certainly on the side of the prerogative. I think that it can readily be proved that ancient usage, as well as the natural deductions from the law, equally sup- port it.
It has always appeared to me that much of the controversy was, after all, rather a dispute about words than about things. The words " making Masons at sight" are not to be found in any of the Constitutions or records of the legitimate Grand Lodge of England. They were first used by that schismatic body known in history as the Athol Grand Lodge, and are to be found in its authorized Book of Constitutions, the " Ahiman Rezon" of
GRAND MASTER. *Q'*
Laurence Dermott.* The " moderns," as they were called, or the regular body, always spoke of "making Masons in an occasional Lodge," and these words continually occur in the second edition of the Book of Constitutions, published by Dr. Anderson, and in all the subsequent editions compiled by other edi- tors. Thus Ave find that in 1731, "Grand Master Lovel formed an occasional Lodge at Sir Robert Walpole's house of Houghton Hall, in Norfolk, and made Brother Lorrain and Brother Thomas Pel- ham, Duke of Newcastle, Master Masons. "f
Again, " on the 16th of February, 1766, an occa- sional Lodge was held at the Horn Tavern, in New Palace Yard, % by the Right Hon. Lord Blaney, Grand Master. His Royal Highness William Henry, Duke of Gloucester, was in the usual manner intro- duced and made an Entered Apprentice, passed a Fellow Craft, and raised to the degree of a Master Mason."§
And again, " on February 9, 1767, an occasional Lodge was held at the Thatched House Tavern, in St. James Street, by Col. John Salter, Deputy Grand Master, as Grand Master, and his Royal Highness Henry Frederick, Duke of Cumberland,
* The language of Dermott is as follows : " The Right Worshipful Grand Master has full power and authority to make (or cause to be made in his Worship's presence) Free and Accepted Masons at sight, and such making is good." — Dekmott's Ahim. Bez. third edit. 1778, p. 72.
f Book of Constitutions, secoud edit. p. 129.
% The regular place of meeting of the Grand Lodge at that time wa.c at the Crown-and-Anchor in the Strand.
§ Book of Constitutions, third edit. p. 313.
464 GBAND MASTER.
was, in the usual manner, introduced and made an Entered Apprentice, passed a Fellow Craft, and raised to the degree of a Master Mason. "*
Now, in all of these cases the candidates were made by the Grand Master, without previous notice, and not in a regular Lodge ; and this is what I sup- pose to be really meant by making Masons at sight. Dermott adopted this phraseology, but Anderson and his successors called it " making Masons in an occasional Lodge." The two expressions mean ex- actly the same thing.
Now, by way of illustrating this theory, let it be supposed that the Grand Master of a certain juris- diction is desirous of making a Mason at sight, or in an occasional Lodge. How is he to exercise this prerogative ? Why, he summons not less than six Master Masons to his assistance, himself making the seventh, which number is necessary to form a per- fect Lodge. They meet together, and he grants his dispensation, (which is virtually done by his pres- ence) permitting a Lodge to be opened and held. The candidate upon whom the Grand Master in- tends to exercise his prerogative, applies for initia- tion, and the Grand Master having dispensed with the Regulation which requires the petition to lie over for one month, the Lodge proceeds to confer the first and second degrees, the Grand Master being in the chair. OnJ;ho following evening, the
* Book of Constitutions, third edition, p. 319. Sailer was at that time exercising the prerogatives of Grand Master, because Lord Blaney was out of the jurisdiction, being in Ireland.— See Preston, p. 228.
GRAND MASTER. 465
same brethren again meet, and the candidate re- ceives the third degree, the Grand Master occupying the chair as before.
The Lodge having accomplished all that was re- quired of it, the Grand Master ceases to exercise his dispensing power — which he is of course at liberty to do, for his dispensation, like the king's writ, is granted durante bene placito, during his good pleasure — and the Lodge is dissolved. But the making of the candidate is good ; nor do I see how it can be denied, for certainly if the Grand Master can authorize A, B and C to make Masons by dis- pensation— and this no one doubts — then surely he can exercise the same functions which he has the power of delegating to others.
And this I suppose to be all that is meant by the prerogative of the Grand Master to make Masons at sight. It is the necessary result of, and indeed is the same thing in a modified form, as his prero- gative to open Lodges by dispensations granted to others.
But in exercising this important prerogative, the Grand Master must be governed by all those prin- ciples which would apply to the initiation of candi- dates in an ordinary Lodge under dispensation ; for although he may dispense with the provisions of a Regulation, he cannot dispense with the Land- marks. The candidate must be possessed of all the requisite qualifications, nor can the Grand Master interfere with any Lodge by making a candidate who has been rejected ; for he cannot exercise
20*
466 GRAND MASTER,
any of his prerogatives to the injuiy of other parties.
Another important prerogative of the Grand Master is that of arresting the charter of a subordi- nate Lodge. To arrest the charter, is a technical phrase, by which is meant to suspend the work of a Lodge — to prevent it from holding its usual com- munications, and to forbid it to transact any busi- ness, or to do any work. A Grand Master cannot revoke the warrant of a Lodge ; for this, as I have already shown, is the peculiar prerogative of the Grand Lodge. But if, in his opinion, the good of Masonry, or any other sufficient cause requires it, lie may suspend the operation of the warrant until the next communication of the Grand Lodge, which body is alone competent to revise or approve of his action. But this prerogative of the Grand Master, as it deprives a Lodge of its activity and usefulness for a period of some duration, and inflicts some por- tion of disgrace upon the body which has subjected itself to such discipline, should be exercised with the utmost caution and reluctance.
The doctrine of the right of appeal has been so fully discussed in a former part of this work, that it is scarcely necessary to say more on this subject than that it is held to be the settled law of Masonry, at this time, that an appeal cannot be taken from the decision of the Grand Master to the Grand Lodge. The Committee of Foreign Correspondence of the Grand Lodge of New York, in 1852, expres- sed views on this subject with which I so heartily
GRAND MASTER. 467
concur, that I readily borrow their language : " We think/' they say, " that no appeal lies from his de- cision, because he is, in his official position, required, like the Master in his Lodge, to see that the Consti- tutions and laws of Masonry are faithfully observed. He cannot do this if his opinion or decision may be instantly set aside by an appeal to that majority, which is about to violate them. In such case also he may close the Lodge to prevent the violation ; so that calm reason teaches us that there is no other just rule in the matter than that of the supremacy and inviolability of presiding officers."
I know that a few Grand Lodges, or rather their Committees of Correspondence, have censured views like these, and declare them to be investing a Grand Master with what they call " the one man power.77 It may be so ; and in like manner the undisputed power of the Worshipful Master over his Lodge may receive a similar designation. And yet it is, in a great measure, to this power beyond appeal, to the responsibility which it entails, and to the great cau- tion which it necessarily begets, that we must attri- bute much of the harmony and stability which have always characterized the Order.
Should the Grand Master ever abuse this great power, and by unjust or incorrect decisions endan- ger the prosperity of the institution, the conserva- tive principle of an annual election will afford a competent check, and the evil of an oppressive or an ignorant presiding officer can readily be cured by
£68 GRAM) MASTER.
his displacement at the constitutional period, and in the constitutional way.
The last subject to be discussed in reference to the office of Grand Master, is the question of suc- cession. In case of the death or absence of the Grand Master, who succeeds to his office ?
There never lias been any doubt that in case of the death or absence from the jurisdiction of the Grand Master, the Deputy succeeds to the office, for this seems to have been the only object of his ap- pointment. The only mooted point is as to the suc- cessor, in the absence of both.
The Fourteenth Regulation of 1721 had pre- scribed, that if the Grand Master and his Deputy should both be absent from the Grand Lodge, the functions of Grand Master shall be vested in " the present Master of a Lodge that has been the longest a Freemason," unless there be a Past Grand Master or Past Deputy present. But this was found to be an infringement on the prerogatives of the Grand Wardens, and accordingly a new Regulation ap- peared in the second edition of the Book of Consti- tutions, which prescribed that the order of succession should be as follows : the Deputy, a Past Grand Master, a Past Deputy Grand Master, the Senior, and then the Junior Grand Warden, the oldest for- mer Grand Warden present, and lastly, the oldest Freemason who is the Master of a Lodge.
But this order of succession does not appear to be strictly in accordance with the representative character of the Grand Lodge, since Past Grand
DEPUTY GRAND MUSTEK. 469
officers, who are not by inherent right members of the Grand Lodge, should not be permitted to take precedence of the actual members and representa- tives. Accordingly, in this country, the Regulation has in general been modified, and here the Deputy succeeds the Grand Master, and after him the Wardens, in order of their rank, and then the Mas- ter of the oldest Lodge present, Grand officers being entirely excluded.
The duties and prerogatives to which these offi- cers succeed, in case of the absence of the Grand Master from any communication, are simply those of a presiding officer, although of course they are for the time invested with all the rights which are exercised by the Grand Master in that capacity. But if the Grand Master be within the limits of the jurisdiction, although absent from the Grand Lodge, all their temporary functions cease as soon as the Grand Lodge is closed.
If, however, the Grand Master is absent from the jurisdiction, or has demised, then these officers, in the order already stated, succeed to the Grand Mas- tership, and exercise all the prerogatives of the office until his return, or, in the case of his death, until the next communication of the Grand Lodge.