Every member present is bound to vote, unless excused by unanimous consent.

If, on a scrutiny, it is found that the verdict is guilty, the Master or presiding officer must then put the question as to the amount and nature of the punishment to be inflicted.

He will commence with the highest penalty, or expulsion, and, if necessary, by that punishment being negatived, proceed to propose indefinite and then definite suspension, exclusion, public or private reprimand, and censure.

For expulsion or either kind of suspension, two-thirds of the votes present are necessary.  For either of the other and lighter penalties, a bare majority will be sufficient.

The votes on the nature of the punishment should be taken by a show of hands.

If the residence of the accused is not known, or if, upon due summons, he refuses or neglects to attend, the lodge may, nevertheless, proceed to trial without his presence.

In trials conducted by Grand Lodges, it is usual to take the preliminary testimony in a committee; but the final decision must always be made in the Grand Lodge.

Section II.

Of the Evidence in Masonic Trials.

In the consideration of the nature of the evidence that is to be given in masonic trials, it is proper that we should first inquire what classes of persons are to be deemed incompetent as witnesses.

The law of the land, which, in this instance, is the same as the law of Masonry, has declared the following classes of person to be incompetent to give evidence.

1.  Persons who have not the use of reason, are, from the infirmity of their nature, considered to be utterly incapable of giving evidence.[101] This class includes idiots, madmen, and children too young to be sensible of the obligations of an oath, and to distinguish between good and evil.

2.  Persons who are entirely devoid of any such religious principle or belief as would bind their consciences to speak the truth, are incompetent as witnesses.  Hence, the testimony of an atheist must be rejected; because, as it has been well said, such a person cannot be subject to that sanction which is deemed an indispensable test of truth.  But as Masonry does not demand of its candidates any other religious declaration than that of a belief in God, it cannot require of the witnesses in its trials any profession of a more explicit faith.  But even here it seems to concur with the law of the land; for it has been decided by Chief Baron Willes, that “an infidel who believes in a God, and that He will reward and punish him in this world, but does not believe in a future state, may be examined upon oath.”

3.  Persons who have been rendered infamous by their conviction of great crimes, are deemed incompetent to give evidence.  This rule has been adopted, because the commission of an infamous crime implies, as Sir William Scott has observed, “such a dereliction of moral principle on the part of the witness, as carries with it the conclusion that he would entirely disregard the obligation of an oath.”  Of such a witness it has been said, by another eminent judge,[102] that “the credit of his oath is over-balanced by the stain of his iniquity.”