nion, from
presenting the considerations which have led me to the conclusion which I
have adopted. I cannot, it is true, in the face of the mass of opposing
authority, offer this conclusion as masonic law. But I would fain hope
that the time is not far distant when it will become so, by the change on
the part of Grand Lodges of the contrary decisions which they have made.

The general opinion in this country is, that when a Mason has been
expelled by his lodge, the Grand Lodge may restore him to the rights and
privileges, but cannot restore him to membership in his lodge. My own
opinion, in contradiction to this, is, that when a Grand Lodge restores an
expelled Mason, on the ground that the punishment of expulsion from the
rights and privileges of Masonry was too severe and disproportioned to the
offense, it may or may not restore him to membership in his lodge. It
might, for instance, refuse to restore his membership on the ground that
exclusion from his lodge is an appropriate punishment; but where the
decision of the lodge as to the guilt of the individual is reversed, and
the Grand Lodge declares him to be innocent, or that the charge against
him has not been proved, then I hold, that it is compelled by a just
regard to the rights of the expelled member to restore him not only to the
rights and privileges of Masonry, but also to membership in his lodge.

I cannot conceive how a Brother, whose innocence has been declared by the
verdict of his Grand Lodge, can be deprived of his vested rights as the
member of a particular lodge, without a violation of the principles of
justice. If guilty, let his expulsion stand; but, if innocent, let him be
placed in the same position in which he was before the passage of the
unjust sentence of the lodge which has been reversed.

The whole error, for such I conceive it to be, in relation to this
question of restoration to membership, arises, I suppose, from a
misapprehension of an ancient regulation, which says that "no man can be
entered a Brother in any particular lodge, or admitted a member thereof,
without the unanimous consent of all the members"--which inherent
privilege is said not to be subject to dispensation, "lest a turbulent
member should thus be imposed upon them, which might spoil their harmony,
or hinder the freedom of their communication, or even break and disperse
the Lodge." But it should be remembered that this regulation altogether
refers to the admission of new