The Rights Of Worshipful Masters

By: The Freemason's Chronicle

We do not think too great importance can be attached to the question, What are the powers and privileges of a Master?

We revert, therefore, to the subject, in order that our readers may have before them, as far as we are able to state it, an exposition of the law as pointed outby the Grand Registrar at the last Communication of Grand Lodge—so far, at least, as regards the assistance the Master may call upon a member of his Lodge to render him in the fulfilment of his duties, and whom he may invite to render such assistance.

A certain amount of obscurity would seem to have attended this knotty point, not because the law was not sufficiently precise, but because it had not been studied with sufficient care.

There has been some amount of confusion between the requirements of the law and the satisfaction of courtesy. The more clearly itis understood what may be done by the Master, the less likely is it that any heart burnings will be excited.

No brother will have a right to feel offended when the Master of his Lodge does that which he is legally allowed to do, nor do we think the latter will be less studious of the feelings of his Past Masters because his powers and privileges are more clearly defined.

At all events, there is less prospect of discord arising in a Lodge, when its members are well-informed upon this subject, and this being so, we need hardly apologise to our readers for troubling them with this second disquisition on the authority of Masters.

The case which led to the statement of the law by the Grand Registrar will bear repetition. The W.M. of one of our Provincial Lodges expressed a wish that a certain member of his Lodge should assist him in working one of our ceremonies. The I.P.M. objected, and claimed the right to do so ; and he did so, the W.M. vacating the chair for that purpose, but under protest.
The I.P.M. was wrong in advancing any such claim, and the Grand Registrar has ruled that the Master of a Lodge may invite any brother—that is, any qualified brother—to speak the words for him in working any of the ceremonies, the words being, in fact, his own words, though spoken by another; and, more-over, that he may place the brother assisting him either near his pedestal, or in any other part of the Lodge.

This, of course, applies to the case of a Master who is momentarily ” incapable of discharging the duties of his office,” but has no intention of vacating the chair. But in the event of his withdrawing, not from the Lodge itself, but from the presidency of the Lodge for it matters not how brief a period of time, he clearly abdicates his functions.
In such case, though he has the right to invite any brother present to take his place, it can obviously be only one who is qualified, and the only brethren qualified to fill the chair of a Lodge, are Installed Masters.

We think it important that this should be clearly understood by our readers; for, unfortunately, in his very elaborate judgment, the Grand Registrar made use of the words any brother, without adding the important word” qualified.”

We have throughout conceded that this was what he intended by the use of the word any, and no doubt it was so understood generally by his audience; but it is well in all such matters to be as precise as possible, especially as there have arisen at different times sundry misunderstandings on this very point.

This, then, appears to be the law according to the latest exposition. A Master who retains his seat may invite any brother to perform any of. the ceremonies for him, and he may place him in any part of the Lodge, the ceremony thus performed having the same validity as though he had himself rehearsed it.

If he vacate the chair during the performance, he may invite any brother he chooses to occupy his seat, who is qualified to fill it, that is, any brother having the rank of an Installed Master.

Thus far, then, the I.P.M. and other P.M.’s of a Lodge in the order of their seniority, have no rights at all, except that it is only one of their degree who can legally occupy the chair of a Lodge in the absence, actual or virtual, of the W.M.
We must now consider the rights and privileges of Past Masters. In the absence of the Master, it devolves, in the first instance, on the Senior Warden to ” act as Master in summoning the Lodge;” in the Senior Warden’s absence, on the Junior Warden ; and then, in his absence, ” the Immediate Past Master, or, in his absence, the Senior Past Master of the Lodge present shall take the chair.
“But if no Past Master is present, then: “the Senior Warden, or, in his absence, the Junior Warden, shall rule the Lodge.”

Here, then, we have a clear and precise definition of the rights of the Immediate and other Past Masters. It is only in the absence of the Master and Wardens that any one of the P.M.’s can summon the Lodge.

It is only in the actual absence of the W.M. that it devolves o the. P.M., or the S.P.M. present, to occupy the chair of the Lodge.

In the absence of Installed Masters, then the Lodge is ruled by the Senior, or, in his absence, by the Junior Warden, but without occupying the chair.

When, then, we hear of the I.P.M., or S.P.M. present, claiming the right to occupy the chair momentarily vacated by the Master, we know that he is advancing a claim to which he is not justly entitled, for the Master may invite any qualified brother to occupy his place.

It is only in the event of no such invitation being addressed to a particular P.M., that the chair is taken as of right by the Immediate or Senior Past Master. It is clear, therefore, that no Past Master has any reason to feel aggrieved if his junior, or a visiting P.M., is preferred over his head to fill the chair.
We confess that, for the sake of courtesy, we should like to see a W.M. show respect for the feelings and seniority of the Past Masters of his Lodge. It is to them he must always look for advice in any difficulty. They are the sage counsellors, on whose wisdom and experience he must rely chiefly for support. It is impossible, therefore, that he can be too conciliatory in his bearing towards them. On the other hand, the Past Masters must exercise some forbearance towards their brother in the chair.

It is not calculated to promote either harmony or discipline in the Lodge, when the authority of the Master is disputed, or when offence is taken where none was intended probably.

It cannot tend to the good of Freemasonry in general, or of any Lodge in particular, that unseemly differences should arise among our ” Conscript Fathers,” whom we are accustomed, or expected, to- regard with feelings of respect.

And now that it has been stated authoritatively what are the powers and privileges of a Master in this particular respect, we trust that, in the interests of the whole Masonic body, we shall hear no more of this class of bickering; and that, as the Grand Registrar remarked so particularly, we shall find our laws interpreted broadly and liberally, not in a narrow and cantankerous spirit.

Liberality of view is essential to the well-being of the Craft, and its is in order to secure this as far as possible that we have again reverted to the proceedings at the last meeting of Grand Lodge. While on this subject, it will interest our readers per-haps to learn that, in America, in the absence of the Master, the practice adopted differs conspicuously from ours.
Oliver, indeed, has noted this in his Mason Jurisprudence, but by mere accident the question was lately brought under our notice in turning over the pages of an old American Masonic newspaper, the American Freemason, Louisville and New York, bearing date 1st November 1855.Herein a writer had culled, from the pages of our Free-masons’ Quarterly Review, the opinions of that journal on different points of Masonic Law.

He then contrasts, where desirable, the practice adopted in America. Among the points noted, occurs a case in which our English editor had evidently been consulted as to some of the powers possessed by the Master of a Lodge, for he is quoted as saying—we have reproduced the words as given in the American journal—” No Mason below the rank of an Installed Master can initiate, pass, or raise.

The pretence of a Warden’s power to initiate in front of the pedestal, is a breach of Masonic law as regards the party so offending; and, in our opinion, any Past Masters present are equally guilty, and, the act not being legal, confers no privilege on those who are the objects of the fault.” (1837 p. 554; also,1841 p. 128).

In commenting on this, the American Freemason says, ” that this is contrary to the Ancient Rule—we refer, of course, to Lodges under the jurisdiction of Grand Lodges in the United States, for with the most of these we are well acquainted “—will be immediately remarked, if the formulas used in the Installation Services are borne in mind.
They all attribute to a Warden all the powers of the Master when presiding in his absence.”

The writer then goes onto wonder how the fact of a brother being a P.M. will enable him to fulfil any one of these ceremonies better. He also objects to the spirit of our law, by which he, on whom the degree is thus conferred, is in no wise benefited.

Oliver’s statement agrees with this in all essential particulars, though he mentions a more ancient rule in America, which provided that, in such cases, the Master’s authority ought to revert to the last Past Master who is present, and also that the Wardens, as a matter of courtesy, will generally invite a Past Master to take the chair, on account of his experience and skill in conducting the business of a Lodge.

However, we have said enough as to the contrast between the law in the two countries, for this is of less importance than the interpretation we put upon our own law. What this latter is we have already shown above.

The Square Magazine Podcast

The Square Magazine Podcast