Page 116 - An account of the Lodge of Nine Muses No. 235. 1777 to 2012UGLE

116 An Account of the

Nine Muses’ / Ordered that the above letter and extract from the proceedings of
the, Prince of Wales’s lodge be taken into special consideration at the next meeting
of this lodge and that notice thereof be inserted in the summons to the brethren.”
On 25 March, after certain business and an initiation, “The lodge adjourned
from labor to Refreshment.” Thus fortified, it proceeded to deal with the
ownership of the candlesticks in no uncertain spirit:
The lodge having resumed, the resolutions of the Prince of Wales’s lodge,
inserted in the minutes of the last meeting of this lodge, were taken into
consideration and the following resolutions in reply were unanimously adopted
and ordered to be inserted on the minutes viz/Resolved. That this lodge do
acknowledge the receipt of copies of certain Resolutions of the Prince of Wales’s
lodge dated the 3rd June 1813 numbered 1. 2 & 3. transmitted by their Secretary
on the 11th January 1814 and presented to this lodge on the 25th February last.
That as to the Resolution No 1 The lodge of the Nine Muses perceives with
satisfaction that the Members of the Prince of Wales’s lodge have relinquished any
claim to the Candlesticks belonging to this lodge. And that the remaining part of that
resolution relating to matters between the late Brother Ruspini and the Prince of
Wales’s lodge does not require any observation.
That as to so much of the second resolution whereby the Prince of. Wales’s
lodge have exprefsed “their very great regret that this lodge should not have
thought it expedient in the first instance to have offered a temperate and amicable
representation to them on the subject in dispute” this lodge cannot refrain from
the exprefsion of their extreme surprise that the Prince of Wales’s lodge should
have accepted of a valuable present of furniture bearing the marks and emblems, and
consequently identified as the property, of the lodge of the nine Muses, from an individual
member of that lodge under whatever pretence such a supposed present was made.
And more especially that the said lodge should have so far forgotten the “respect
and courtesy” due to this lodge as to omit the smallest inquiry whether the property
so identified COULD belong to the individual who offered it to them.
That for want of such a communication this lodge was not informed of such
proceedings for a series of years until by accident the two lodges held their meetings