[42] We shall not here discuss the question whether Past Masters are members of the Grand Lodge, by inherent right, as that subject will be more appropriately investigated when we come to speak of the Law of Grand Lodges, in a future chapter.  They are, however clearly, not the representatives of their lodge.

[43] Preston, p. 167 (U.M.L., vol. iii., p. 151).

[44] General Regulations.  Of the duty of members, Art.  X, (U.M.L., vol. xv., book 1, p. 61).

[45] English Constitutions, p. 59 (U.M.L., vol. ix., book 1).

[46] In selecting the name, the modern Constitutions of England make the approbation of the Grand Master or Provincial Grand Master necessary.

[47] Such is the doctrine of the modern English Constitutions.

[48] “No Brother can be a Warden until he has passed the part of a Fellow Craft; nor a Master until he has acted as a Warden.”—­Old Charges, IV.  (U.M.L., vol. xv., book 1, p. 52).

[49] Regulations on Installation of a Master, No.  III.  Preston, p. 74 (U.M.L., vol. iii., p. 61).

[50] Hats. quoted in Jefferson, p. 14.

[51] One of the ancient charges, which Preston tells us that it was the constant practice of our Ancient Brethren to rehearse at the opening and closing of the lodge, seems to refer to this rule, when it says, “the Master, Wardens, and Brethren are just and faithful, and carefully finish the work they begin.”—­Oliver’s Preston, p. 27, note (U.M.L., vol. iii., p. 22).

[52] Proceedings of G.L. of Tennessee, 1850.  Appendix A, p. 8.

[53] Book of Constitutions, edition of 1755, p. 282.

[54] If it is an extra communication, this item of the transaction is, of course, omitted, for minutes are only to be confirmed at regular communications.

[55] Oliver’s Preston, p. 163, note (U.M.L., vol. iii., p. 135).

[56] Such is the provision in the modern constitutions of England, but the 4th of the 39 Regulations required the candidate to be at least twenty-five.

[57] See these regulations in Preston, p. 162, Oliver’s ed. (U.M.L., vol. iii., p. 135).

[58] Oliver’s Preston, p. 72, (U.M.L., vol. iii., p. 59).

[59] Blackstone, Com.  I., Introd., Sec. 2.

[60] In an able report on this subject, in the proceedings of the Grand Lodge of Georgia for 1852.  In accordance with the views there expressed, Bro.  Rockwell decided officially, as District Deputy Grand Master, in 1851, that a man who had lost one eye was not admissible.

[61] Potter, 184.

[62] Page 18.  In December, 1851, the Committee of Correspondence of North Carolina, unregardful of the rigid rule of their predecessors, decided that maimed candidates might be initiated, “provided their loss or infirmity will not prevent them from making full proficiency in Masonry.”

[63] Proceedings of the G.L. of Mo. for 1823, p. 5.  The report and resolution were on the petitions of two candidates to be initiated, one with only one arm, and the other much deformed in his legs.