Unfavourable Reports
An unfavourable report on an Application for Initiation was not unusual; and, the writer recalls even as recently as during the 1980's having spoken to the late Wor. Bro. Raymond A. Jamieson, Q.C. (who died in 1992 at the age of 97 years), who commented that one should be proud to have been accepted into the Lodge, because, he said, not everyone was. This sort of observation may sound somewhat surprising at a time when most Lodges appear only too anxious to welcome new members, but perhaps the observation should be kept in mind if for no other reason than to preserve the respectability which the Craft has enjoyed over the centuries.
See the Minutes of December 15, 1861 for the rejection of Mr. Joseph Forrest, a Candidate for Initiation (although also note the motion for a reconsideration of the matter in the Minutes of January 10, 1862, and the subsequent further rejection on February 14, 1862). Also, in the Minutes of February 14, 1862, a Ballot upon Geo. W. Bush was declared against the Candidate.
There is of course never any indication of the reasons for rejection of an applicant for admission. In fact, even to this day, it would be considered improper to discuss such matters in the context of a Lodge meeting, as the ballot decision is strictly private and personal. One would hope that the reasons for black balling an applicant were rational, such as a clear perception of commercial motivation or aspiration towards favour and social benefit.
The ballot process was and is always preceded by an enquiry into the reasons for application and a general form of investigation of the proposed candidate. It was not uncommon (see Minutes of July 6, 1906) for the committee which was appointed to examine an applicant to report favourably, only to have the ballot turn out unfavourably. For example, William Edward Scott, furniture dealer, age 32 years, applied for admission on March 1, 1912, was approved by the examining committee, but rejected by ballot on April 5, 1912 (though note that W. E. Scott eventually became Master of the Lodge). On February 5, 1904, although the "committees on character" reported favourably with respect to three applicants, all three were summarily rejected when the ballot was passed.
At the Meeting of August 8, 1862, it was proposed to require that any candidate for admission to the Lodge deposit the sum of five dollars, to be applied to his Initiation fee (then $20) if successful, or returned if not. At the Meeting of September 5, 1862, the proposal was adopted in open Lodge, with the further qualification that if the candidate, once received, did not proceed with his Initiation ceremony within three months, the five dollars was forfeited. The practice of providing financial security with a Petition was, as appears from the Meeting of October 23, 1863, modified somewhat when one of the Brethren "guaranteed" to amount required ($10) for two petitions.
See the Minutes of December 15, 1861 for the rejection of Mr. Joseph Forrest, a Candidate for Initiation (although also note the motion for a reconsideration of the matter in the Minutes of January 10, 1862, and the subsequent further rejection on February 14, 1862). Also, in the Minutes of February 14, 1862, a Ballot upon Geo. W. Bush was declared against the Candidate.
There is of course never any indication of the reasons for rejection of an applicant for admission. In fact, even to this day, it would be considered improper to discuss such matters in the context of a Lodge meeting, as the ballot decision is strictly private and personal. One would hope that the reasons for black balling an applicant were rational, such as a clear perception of commercial motivation or aspiration towards favour and social benefit.
The ballot process was and is always preceded by an enquiry into the reasons for application and a general form of investigation of the proposed candidate. It was not uncommon (see Minutes of July 6, 1906) for the committee which was appointed to examine an applicant to report favourably, only to have the ballot turn out unfavourably. For example, William Edward Scott, furniture dealer, age 32 years, applied for admission on March 1, 1912, was approved by the examining committee, but rejected by ballot on April 5, 1912 (though note that W. E. Scott eventually became Master of the Lodge). On February 5, 1904, although the "committees on character" reported favourably with respect to three applicants, all three were summarily rejected when the ballot was passed.
At the Meeting of August 8, 1862, it was proposed to require that any candidate for admission to the Lodge deposit the sum of five dollars, to be applied to his Initiation fee (then $20) if successful, or returned if not. At the Meeting of September 5, 1862, the proposal was adopted in open Lodge, with the further qualification that if the candidate, once received, did not proceed with his Initiation ceremony within three months, the five dollars was forfeited. The practice of providing financial security with a Petition was, as appears from the Meeting of October 23, 1863, modified somewhat when one of the Brethren "guaranteed" to amount required ($10) for two petitions.
On June 22, 1866, the Committee of Enquiry regarding the application of J. B. Dickson (who was being sought by Renfrew Lodge for Initiation) reported unfavourably.
On June 18, 1869 it is reported that "The Ballot being ordered to be passed for the reception of Nelson D. Lee's application, the same was rejected".
Regarding the Application for Initiation of one Patrick O'Brien on September 17, 1869 "upon the Ballot being past was declared 'gainst him".
It appears that the Brethren of the neighbouring Lodges made a habit of consulting one another about candidates for admission to the privileges and mysteries of Ancient Free Masonry. Consider, for example, the following brief entry in the Minutes of September 30, 1872:
Communication from Sec. St. John's Lodge No. 63 C. Place inquiring respecting the character of James McLean. Moved by Bro. O. E. Henderson and seconded by Bro. Bagsley that the Sec'y be instructed to write to the sec. of St. John's Lodge 63 C. Place that we know of no reason why James McLean should not be initiated into the mysteries of Masonry. Carried.
The communications between Lodges were not just "one way", when one enquired of another about the character of an applicant. On October 11, 1872 it is reported that the Secretary of Builders Lodge No. 177 wrote to advise that Peter McDonald and John Randall had applied to that Lodge to be initiated as Masons and were rejected. There was not likely any vindictive nature to this communication, but rather simply the attempt to keep all Brethren of local Lodges fully informed of matters which had a bearing upon them. Similarly, in the Meeting of March 14, 1873, there were two instances of enquiries directed from other Lodges (St. John's Lodge No. 63, Carleton Place and Aldworth Lodge No. 235, Paisley) regarding the character of applicants for admission to the mysteries and privileges of Masonry.
See also the reference as follows in the Minutes of December 13, 1872:
Communications read as follows: From Sec. of Builder's Lodge No. 177, Ottawa, saying that Mr. Donald Robertson, Storekeeper of that City applied to be initiated in the mysteries of Masonry to that Lodge and was rejected.
On June 18, 1869 it is reported that "The Ballot being ordered to be passed for the reception of Nelson D. Lee's application, the same was rejected".
Regarding the Application for Initiation of one Patrick O'Brien on September 17, 1869 "upon the Ballot being past was declared 'gainst him".
It appears that the Brethren of the neighbouring Lodges made a habit of consulting one another about candidates for admission to the privileges and mysteries of Ancient Free Masonry. Consider, for example, the following brief entry in the Minutes of September 30, 1872:
Communication from Sec. St. John's Lodge No. 63 C. Place inquiring respecting the character of James McLean. Moved by Bro. O. E. Henderson and seconded by Bro. Bagsley that the Sec'y be instructed to write to the sec. of St. John's Lodge 63 C. Place that we know of no reason why James McLean should not be initiated into the mysteries of Masonry. Carried.
The communications between Lodges were not just "one way", when one enquired of another about the character of an applicant. On October 11, 1872 it is reported that the Secretary of Builders Lodge No. 177 wrote to advise that Peter McDonald and John Randall had applied to that Lodge to be initiated as Masons and were rejected. There was not likely any vindictive nature to this communication, but rather simply the attempt to keep all Brethren of local Lodges fully informed of matters which had a bearing upon them. Similarly, in the Meeting of March 14, 1873, there were two instances of enquiries directed from other Lodges (St. John's Lodge No. 63, Carleton Place and Aldworth Lodge No. 235, Paisley) regarding the character of applicants for admission to the mysteries and privileges of Masonry.
See also the reference as follows in the Minutes of December 13, 1872:
Communications read as follows: From Sec. of Builder's Lodge No. 177, Ottawa, saying that Mr. Donald Robertson, Storekeeper of that City applied to be initiated in the mysteries of Masonry to that Lodge and was rejected.
Nothing, however, came close to the following report in the Minutes of January 10, 1973:
Communication from Lodge No. 128 G.R.C. Pembroke read saying that Frederick Townsen, Carpenter, Joseph H. Edwards, Merchant, W. H. MacKinnon, Merchant, James Stewart, Tinsmith and Wr. Eric Rowsell, Tailor, all of the Town of Pembroke, severally made application for Initiation and were rejected.
It is difficult to avoid being persuaded that the Lodge was, if nothing else, at least somewhat preoccupied with matters of rejection; and it may not even be putting too fine a point on the subject to suggest a bit of relish and delight in the matter. After all, the image which Masonry frequently enjoys even to this day as being elitist did not come from nowhere. However, of equal importance is the obvious fact that the early Lodge members felt themselves to be a united community; and, for whatever reason one may advance, the Brethren kept a close watch on who was or was not rejected from application to Masonry.
At the meeting of March 27, 1874, "The Ballot was passed on the petition of Edwin Thomas and found not clear".
Likewise, on August 21, 1874, "The Ballot was passed for Mr. Lewis Walker and was not found clear".
On July 16, 1875 a letter from St. John's Lodge No. 63 (Carleton Place) was read that James Carley made application for initiation and was rejected.
On August 5, 1876, the Application for Initiation of John M. Sherlock was turned down because the report on the Application was unfavourable.
Communication from Lodge No. 128 G.R.C. Pembroke read saying that Frederick Townsen, Carpenter, Joseph H. Edwards, Merchant, W. H. MacKinnon, Merchant, James Stewart, Tinsmith and Wr. Eric Rowsell, Tailor, all of the Town of Pembroke, severally made application for Initiation and were rejected.
It is difficult to avoid being persuaded that the Lodge was, if nothing else, at least somewhat preoccupied with matters of rejection; and it may not even be putting too fine a point on the subject to suggest a bit of relish and delight in the matter. After all, the image which Masonry frequently enjoys even to this day as being elitist did not come from nowhere. However, of equal importance is the obvious fact that the early Lodge members felt themselves to be a united community; and, for whatever reason one may advance, the Brethren kept a close watch on who was or was not rejected from application to Masonry.
At the meeting of March 27, 1874, "The Ballot was passed on the petition of Edwin Thomas and found not clear".
Likewise, on August 21, 1874, "The Ballot was passed for Mr. Lewis Walker and was not found clear".
In the minutes of February 19, 1875 it is recorded:
A communication was received and read asking a recommendation and also the consent of this Lodge to enable W. C. Stone to be initiated into Masonry Union Lodge No. 9, Napanee. The Sec was instructed to say in answer that the Members of this Lodge are not sufficiently acquainted with Mr. Stone to recommend him.On July 16, 1875 a letter from St. John's Lodge No. 63 (Carleton Place) was read that James Carley made application for initiation and was rejected.
On August 5, 1876, the Application for Initiation of John M. Sherlock was turned down because the report on the Application was unfavourable.
In the Minutes of July 2, 1880, the following appears:
A communication from the Secretary of Birmingham Lodge No. 232, Innisville, Ohio was then read asking for information of a Rev. Geo. Rogers who claimed to be a Mason hailing from this section. This party being wholly unknown to the Lodge, the visiting Brethren from Pakenham, Carleton Place and Lanark Village were asked if they knew anything about such a person and all reported that they never heard of the name before. Moved by W. Bro. Mostyn, seconded by W. Bro. Smith that the Secretary report to the Sec'y of Birmingham Lodge No. 232 Innisville, Ohio that no such person as Rev. Geo. Rodgers (sic) is known in this section.
On November 3, 1882, "The W.M. ordered the Ballot to be passed for Mr. John R. James which was done and found not clear."
Not all unfavourable reports were directed to applicants for initiation. On November 2, 1894, the following appears:
The W.M. read the DDGM's report from the Ottawa district presented at the late meeting of Grand lodge which elicited considerable unfavourable comment from some of the Members present, evidencing a disapproval of the district deputy's report of his visit to this lodge.
Bro. L. Coulter gave notice that at the next regular meeting of this lodge, he would introduce a motion amending certain clauses of our by Laws to which the DDGM during his last visit took exception, stating that they were in conflict with the Grand Lodge Constitution, the object of the motion being to make these clauses of By Laws conform to the Constitution.
It is perhaps natural that subordinate lodges occasionally react negatively to criticism by superior authority. Mississippi Lodge does, however, exemplify the conviction of local brethren to abide by their traditional patterns in the conduct of lodge proceedings, in spite of chastisement and attempts at correction by Grand Lodge.
On March 7, 1902, "The W. M. ordered the ballot passed on Mr. G. B. Browne and on examination was found unfavourable. W. M. then declared Mr. Browne rejected. W. M. ordered the ballot passed on Mr. W. R. Giles and on examination was found unfavourable. W. M. then declared Mr. Giles rejected."
The Application of Albert James McLean was rejected on February 3, 1905.
Not all unfavourable reports were directed to applicants for initiation. On November 2, 1894, the following appears:
The W.M. read the DDGM's report from the Ottawa district presented at the late meeting of Grand lodge which elicited considerable unfavourable comment from some of the Members present, evidencing a disapproval of the district deputy's report of his visit to this lodge.
Bro. L. Coulter gave notice that at the next regular meeting of this lodge, he would introduce a motion amending certain clauses of our by Laws to which the DDGM during his last visit took exception, stating that they were in conflict with the Grand Lodge Constitution, the object of the motion being to make these clauses of By Laws conform to the Constitution.
It is perhaps natural that subordinate lodges occasionally react negatively to criticism by superior authority. Mississippi Lodge does, however, exemplify the conviction of local brethren to abide by their traditional patterns in the conduct of lodge proceedings, in spite of chastisement and attempts at correction by Grand Lodge.
On March 7, 1902, "The W. M. ordered the ballot passed on Mr. G. B. Browne and on examination was found unfavourable. W. M. then declared Mr. Browne rejected. W. M. ordered the ballot passed on Mr. W. R. Giles and on examination was found unfavourable. W. M. then declared Mr. Giles rejected."
The Application of Albert James McLean was rejected on February 3, 1905.
A rather astonishing reference appears in the minutes of March 7, 1919:
Comm(unication) from D.D.G.M. was read stating that a decision of the Grand Master to the effect that "A candidate with the leg off at the ankle and wearing an artificial foot was not eligible for initiation."
This apparently heartless verdict may be attributed to the contention that mobility in Lodge ritual was required to such an extent that such a candidate would be unable or unwilling to participate. Perhaps there is another explanation. Otherwise, the mere necessity of physical integrity is somewhat difficult to support. Such an assertion only has foundation in the historical context of distinction between the slave and the "man free by birth" (whose mere index finger had not been amputated at the first joint). Considering the preoccupation of Masonry generally with the inner man, one cannot help but be somewhat astonished by such a restriction.
Mention is made at the meeting of March 2, 1945 of a circular from the Grand Master "dealing with care and caution in the selection of candidates in these days of prosperity that we do not create embarrassing financial situations which unfortunately was common after the war of 1914".
At his annual visit on April 1, 1949, Rt. Wor. Bro. H. Edwin Reaume, D.D.G.M of the Ottawa Masonic District, counselled the brethren in attendance that, "one of the nice things in Masonry is that it teaches men what is proper and right. It is a mistake to admit men just for the purpose of increasing the membership". A somewhat similar theme was reiterated by Rt. Wor. Bro. Willis E. Leach, D.D.G.M. on the occasion of his official visit on April 4, 1952, when he noted, "...that men are attracted to Masonry by the character of men they know are members of the Craft. The number of candidates is not a measure of the strength of a lodge but the character of the members is the strong tie that binds all together in this great fraternity".
There was customarily conjoined to the act of rejection the statutory admonition by the ruling Master as follows (May 5, 1949):
The W. M. ordered the secretary to read Section 25 of the By-laws and adding to what was read by the secretary hoped the brethren would keep in mind that part of their obligation where each Mason promises not to reveal any of the Ss. of Masonry.
Section 25 then, as now, states, "When a candidate for initiation or affiliation, is rejected...no member...shall reveal...any transactions which may have occurred on the subject...nor shall any proceedings of the lodge not proper to be made public be disclosed outside thereof". This sanction no doubt covers discourse (if any) regarding the balloting process, but naturally would not confine disclosure of the outcome of the ballot, which clearly would be communicated to the candidate. It is inherent to the balloting process that some candidates will be rejected. Such rejection must certainly leave a sour taste with the candidate, who may well never reconsider application. It would of course be considered quite discourteous both within and without the Lodge to disclose the existence of even one black ball in the ballot box with respect to a candidate's application. Disclosure of that nature would serve only to harbour doubt and possible alienation among the brethren.
Mention is made at the meeting of March 2, 1945 of a circular from the Grand Master "dealing with care and caution in the selection of candidates in these days of prosperity that we do not create embarrassing financial situations which unfortunately was common after the war of 1914".
At his annual visit on April 1, 1949, Rt. Wor. Bro. H. Edwin Reaume, D.D.G.M of the Ottawa Masonic District, counselled the brethren in attendance that, "one of the nice things in Masonry is that it teaches men what is proper and right. It is a mistake to admit men just for the purpose of increasing the membership". A somewhat similar theme was reiterated by Rt. Wor. Bro. Willis E. Leach, D.D.G.M. on the occasion of his official visit on April 4, 1952, when he noted, "...that men are attracted to Masonry by the character of men they know are members of the Craft. The number of candidates is not a measure of the strength of a lodge but the character of the members is the strong tie that binds all together in this great fraternity".
There was customarily conjoined to the act of rejection the statutory admonition by the ruling Master as follows (May 5, 1949):
The W. M. ordered the secretary to read Section 25 of the By-laws and adding to what was read by the secretary hoped the brethren would keep in mind that part of their obligation where each Mason promises not to reveal any of the Ss. of Masonry.
Section 25 then, as now, states, "When a candidate for initiation or affiliation, is rejected...no member...shall reveal...any transactions which may have occurred on the subject...nor shall any proceedings of the lodge not proper to be made public be disclosed outside thereof". This sanction no doubt covers discourse (if any) regarding the balloting process, but naturally would not confine disclosure of the outcome of the ballot, which clearly would be communicated to the candidate. It is inherent to the balloting process that some candidates will be rejected. Such rejection must certainly leave a sour taste with the candidate, who may well never reconsider application. It would of course be considered quite discourteous both within and without the Lodge to disclose the existence of even one black ball in the ballot box with respect to a candidate's application. Disclosure of that nature would serve only to harbour doubt and possible alienation among the brethren.
On December 2, 1949, correspondence was read from the M. Wor. the Grand Master "...with a warning to all lodges to exercise the utmost care in the investigation of candidates, about dealing with any brother who has been convicted of any serious and criminal offences or who have been found guilty of conduct involving moral turpitude in any civil action". Such an approach, while cautious, could hardly be characterized as "christian", but perhaps fulfilled the expectation that members (and persons not members of the Lodge) have of the brethren. On April 5, 1950 further correspondence was read from the M. Wor. the Grand Master "...re the problem of immigrants from other countries claiming to be Masons whose Grand Lodges are not recognized by our Grand Lodge".
Balloting upon multiple candidates frequently took place by one vote. Only in the event of an unfavourable outcome was the ballot then taken separately for each candidate. On occasion (June 2, 1950), even if the ballot was unfavourable, it would be repeated to ensure the same outcome. On February 2, 1951 some unusual observations were made by the Wor. Master concerning the balloting process:
The W. M. directed the deacons to prepare and pass the ballot which was done accordingly. On examination the ballot was found unfavourable. The W. M. then directed another ballot be taken and reminded the brethren present that the ballot was a very serious part of our Masonic duty and one that should not be taken lightly. Any difference of a worldly nature should be left outside the door of the lodge. On examination by the three principal officers the ballot was found favourable and the W. M. declared Gordon Dicks Hepditch a member of this lodge by affiliation.
In circumstances such as this, one has to wonder how the applicant would have reacted to such events upon hearing the record of them read in open lodge at a subsequent meeting, not to mention the obvious question of possible influence which suggests itself. Vy. Wor. Bro. J. C. Smithson has provided the following background information regarding this event:
Balloting upon multiple candidates frequently took place by one vote. Only in the event of an unfavourable outcome was the ballot then taken separately for each candidate. On occasion (June 2, 1950), even if the ballot was unfavourable, it would be repeated to ensure the same outcome. On February 2, 1951 some unusual observations were made by the Wor. Master concerning the balloting process:
The W. M. directed the deacons to prepare and pass the ballot which was done accordingly. On examination the ballot was found unfavourable. The W. M. then directed another ballot be taken and reminded the brethren present that the ballot was a very serious part of our Masonic duty and one that should not be taken lightly. Any difference of a worldly nature should be left outside the door of the lodge. On examination by the three principal officers the ballot was found favourable and the W. M. declared Gordon Dicks Hepditch a member of this lodge by affiliation.
In circumstances such as this, one has to wonder how the applicant would have reacted to such events upon hearing the record of them read in open lodge at a subsequent meeting, not to mention the obvious question of possible influence which suggests itself. Vy. Wor. Bro. J. C. Smithson has provided the following background information regarding this event:
I personally recall this event. Gordon had been appointed the Town's "Property Assessment Commissioner" when I was on Town Council. Naturally, some brethren had disagreed with his adjustments for their properties. Thus the unfavourable 1st Ballot. I fully supported what the W.M. did by his caution to the members prior to the 2nd Ballot. A lot of us expected it might happen and cautioned the Wor. Master accordingly.
No comments:
Post a Comment