ESTABLISHMENT OF COLLEGES AND SCHOOLS. The establishment of Colleges and preparatory Schools for the education of the orphan children of worthy Brother Masons, is a new feature in the history of Masonry in this country; and it is one which no Mason can contemplate but with the liveliest emotions. In a considerable number of States vigorous efforts are now making in the Grand Lodges to place the means of a thorough education within the reach of the children of Masons. In this noble, and praiseworthy enterprise, Missouri takes the lead. In the Journal of Proceedings of the G. Lodge of that State for April and October, 5844, is a highly interesting account of their Institution. It is entirely under the control of the Grand Lodge, and is to be a college and school for the instruction of youth in all branches of learning usually taught in such institutions, and an asylum for the orphans of the destitute Master Masons, and such others as the Grand Lodge may admit. It is called the Masonic College of the State of Missouri,-all the Officers and instructors are to be Masons. It went into operation in May of last year, and in October numbered about fifty scholars. Four of the subordinate Lodges have beneficiaries there, and the institution appears in a highly prosperous condition. We cannot speak in terms of too high praise of our Brethren in Missouri for this noble effort of theirs in the cause of philanthrophy, education, and Masonry; and they have our most hearty wishes for their prosperity and success. The Grand Lodges in the States of North Carolina, Indiana, Tennessee, Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi and Illinois are all agitating the same matter, and some of them are adopting vigorous measures for the accomplishment of the same object. Perhaps there may not exist in the Northern States where the means of a common education at a public expense are brought home to the whole community, the same necessity for the measures adopted by our southern and western Brethren. Still it is worthy of consideration, whether something of this kind may not and ought not to be done here. We observe with pleasure that it is recommended by some of the Grand Lodges to the subordinate Lodges to seek out the orphans of worthy Brothers and see that they are properly provided for; and that the means for acquiring an education are furnished them at the expense of the Lodge. In the Grand Lodge of Kentucky, the following resolution was passed: Resolved, That the Grand Lodge request each and every subordinate Lodge under its jurisdiction, to appoint a committee, whose duty it shall be, to find out all of the orphan children of deceased Masons, within the limits of its jurisdiction, and those that are in indigent circumstances, and send said children to the school in the neighborhood where they live, and pay for the same out of the funds of the Lodge, and by subscriptions from members and transient members; and if there cannot be means enough raised by such sources, then this G. Lodge may appropriate such sums as it may deem proper, for such purposes, by petition being made for the same." We have only to reflect upon this subject for a moment to see where the path of duty lies, and that and the path of highest interest are identical. VISITING SICK BRETHREN. Among the distinguishing features of modern Masonry, is the disposition in the brotherhood which is becoming more and more manifest every year, to reduce its beautiful precepts to practice. None of these have higher claims than that of visiting, sympathising with, and aiding those upon whom disease has laid its heavy hand. MASONIC CHIT CHAT. Messrs William H. Weld, and John B. Weld are authorized to receive subscriptions and settle accounts for the Freemasons' Monthly Magazine. We have printed a larger edition of the present number of the Magazine than usual, in order to be able to supply new subscribers with the volume complete, and shall continue to do so for a few numbers to come. It is desirable, however, that Brethren who intend to forward their names, should do so as early as convenient. We have to ask the indulgence of correspondents who have proposed inquiries for consideration. Our engagements for the last two or three months have been more than usually pressing. We invite the attention of our readers to the advertisement of Masonic Books, on the covers of this Magazine. The works are all of high character, and afford the best opportunity ever offered to the Lodges and Brethren in this country, to lay the foundation for an excellent Masonic Library. Brethren ordering them are requested to be partic. ular in their directions as to the manner in which they wish them forwarded, which will in all cases be done at their risk. They eannot of course be sent by mail. We regret to learn that a schism has sprung up in the Grand Lodge of Berlin. It has its origin in the exclusion of the Jews, and a strong feeling exists against the Prince Protector, as Grand Master. A repeal of the obnoxious and unmasonic regulation referred to, would restore harmony. Our last budget of Masonic intelligence from England, represents the Fraternity there as being in a most prosperous condition. The approaching season will be an active, and we trust profitable one. We understand that Middlesex Lodge, at Framingham, will celebrate its fiftieth anniversary, on the evening of the 13th instant. The Duchess of Inverness has presented to the Grand Lodge of England, the costly testimonial given to her illustrious husband, the late Duke of Sussex, by the Fraternity, while Grand Master. It is now, therefore, the property of the Grand Lodge. It was put up at auction, with the other effects of the Duke, and purchased by the Duchess for the purpose or disposing of it as here stated. She has thus associated her own name with that of her distinguished consort in the annals of Freemasonry. Both will long be cherished with affectionate remembrance by the Fraternity in England. A correspondent at Marshal, Mo. inquires, whether E. A. and F. C. are allowed to walk in Masonic funeral processions? None but Master Masons can be interred with the ceremonies of the Order. There are certain parts of those ceremonies in which none but Master Masons can be permitted to participate. We think none but Master Masons can be allowed to walk in the procession, as Masons. If this opinion be correct, it cannot be changed by Grand Lodge enactment. It rests on the fundamental regulations and usages of the Order, to which G. Lodges are subordinate. We are requested to state, that on the 13th inst. the new Masonic Hall, at Ballston Spa, N. Y. will be dedicated in due form by the R. W. Br. John D. Willard, Dis. Dep. Grand Master, of the Grand Lodge of New York, assisted by Franklin Lodge of that place, and the members of the Fraternity in the city. Travelling Agents for the Magazine. MAY A BROTHER BE A MEMBER OF TWO LODGES AT THE SAME TIME? A CORRESPONDENT proposes the above inquiry. We answer, that such is not the usage of the Fraternity. Cases may exist,--we know that they do exist,-where the practice is against the usage. But they do not invalidate the legality of the latter, nor establish the correctness of the former. An incorrect practice may obtain in certain locations, and continue for so long a period, as to become the usage, within the sphere of its operation. But as a general rule, where the local practice is against the common and more general usage, it is wrong. In the present case, the usage in this country, and pretty generally in Europe, is against a Brother's enrolling himself, as an actual member, in more than one Lodge, at the same time. And this usage is based on established regulations. In Harris's edition of the "Constitutions of the ancient and honorable Fraternity of Free and Accepted Masons; collected and digested from the old records, faithful traditions and Lodge books," and published under the sanction of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, in 1798, on page 52, Chapter 3, Article 1st, we find the following regulation: "Every Brother ought to belong to some regular Lodge, and should always appear therein properly clothed; truly subjecting himself to the By-Laws and the general regulations. He must attend all meetings when duly summoned, unless he can offer to the Master and Wardens such plea of necessity for his absence as the said laws and regulations may admit. "By the ancient rules and regulations of Masonry, which are generally adopted among the by-laws of every Lodge, no plea was judged sufficient to excuse any absentee, unless he could satisfy the Lodge, that he was detained by some extraordinary and unforeseen necessity. "No Brother shall be a member of more than one Lodge at the same time."— [Art. "of Attendance."] This would seem to be sufficient to settle the question, if we are to be governed by old and generally recognized regulations. But let us look further. One of our old black-letter Charges, in the possession of the Lodge of Antiquity at London, and written in the time of James II., (about 1655,) says :— 66 Tenthly, That every Master Mason and Fellow shall come to the assemble, (i. e. the Lodge) if itt be within fifty miles* of him, if he have any warning." Now, suppose a Brother to be a member of two or three Lodges at the same time (for if he may be a member of two, he may by the same rule be a member of all that will receive him); but suppose that he be a member of two only, and that he is summoned to appear before both on the same evening,--which summons is he to obey? How is he to discharge his duties and obligations to both? Another of these old black-letter regulations says;-" And if the offender, being duly cited to appear, prove rebel, and will not attend, then the Lodge shall determine against him, that he shall forswear (renounce) his Masonry, and shall no more use this Craft." It seems to us, that in the occurrence of the case supposed, the Brother would he placed in a dilemma, from which he would find it difficult to extricate himself. The first book of Constitutions ever published (1722,)-under the article "Lodges," says: "A Lodge is a place where Masons assemble and work: hence that assembly, or duly organized society of Masons, is called a Lodge; and every Brother ought to belong to one." This does not say that he shall not belong to more than one, nor does it say that he may belong to two Lodges. But in order to settle the true meaning of the article, or at least to determine the sense in which it was understood at the time of its first publication, we quote the following section from the eighth article of the regulations of the Grand Lodge of England, adopted Feb. 19, 1723 :- "No Brother shall belong to more than one Lodge within the Bills of Mortality, though he may visit them all.”+ We will venture to take it for granted that this settles the question as to the intention of the article referred to. The spirit of it is still retained in the present Constitution of the Grand Lodge of England. We quote from the last edition--1841, page 84: "When a Lodge has ceased to meet, any former member thereof shall be eligible to be proposed and admitted a member of another Lodge, on producing a certifi cate from the Grand Secretary, stating the fact, and specifying whether the Brother has been registered and his quarterages duly paid." Thus far, ancient and foreign regulations. Let us now see how the matter stands at home. The Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts contain the following: *By modern usage reduced, except in cases of peremptory summons, to three miles. + That is, being a member of one Lodge, he may visit all others within the Bills of Mortality. There were at that time few or no chartered Lodges under the jurisdiction of this Grand Lodge, out of London. #That the Lodge of which he was a "former member," has " ceased to meet." "No Brother shall be a member of more than one Lodge; nor shall he hold more than one office in the same Lodge, or in Grand Lodge, at the same time.[Part 5. Sec. 13. p. 54. "No Brother shall be a member of more than one subordinate Lodge at the same time."-[Con. G. L. of N. H., Art. 4. Sec. 7. "No Lodge shall admit to membership any Brother who is already a member of a Lodge under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge.”—[Con. G. L. of Md., Art. 28. Sec. 20. "Every organized Lodge that admits a member who is in arrears to any other Lodge, thereby becomes responsible to the Lodge to which he has last belonged." [Con. G. L. Ky., Sec. 62. "No Brother can be a member of more than one Lodge at the same time." Con. G. L. Mo. Chap. 25. Sec. 8. "Each subordinate Lodge, under this jurisdiction, shall require every Mason applying for membership therein, to present satisfactory evidence to such Lodge, that he has taken a regular demit from the Lodge of which he had last been a member, or that such Lodge is no longer in existence."— [Con. G. L. Iowa, Sec. 36. "No Brother shall be a member of more than one Lodge," &c.-[Con. G. L. Wis. Part 4. Sec. 12. "No Brother shall be a member of more than one Lodge at the same time.”— [Con. G. L. N. J. Gen. Reg. Sec. 6. We might extend these authorities were it necessary; but it is not. Enough have been given to show that the regulations and the usage are both against the practice of a Brother's holding membership in more than one Lodge at the same time. And we are disposed to regard the prohibition as wise and conservative. It is an old and generally sound maxim, that a man cannot well serve two masters at the same time. A Brother being a member of two Lodges, must necessarily be divided in his attachments and in his labors, and he will seldom be of any service to either. His prejudices and partialities will often be found enlisted in favor of the one and against the other, as their proceedings, on the many local questions which are continually arising among the Lodges, may correspond or otherwise with his own personal views of right. Besides, if a Brother may be a member of two Lodges at the same time, he may be called to fill one of the three principal offices in each Lodge at the same time. Every Lodge is empowered to instruct its representatives in Grand Lodge; but the Lodges are not all bound to think alike, or to take the same view of important questions before the Grand Lodge. Suppose the Brother receive conflicting instructions from both of the Lodges that he represents--which shall he follow? But we have not room to argue the question. Enough we trust has been said to answer the inquiry of our correspondent. He does not inform us of his own views. If they differ from our's, and he is not satisfied with the authorities cited, if he will state his objections, we will consider them. |