Page 16 - Centennial Sketch of the History of the Lodge of Nine Muses No. 235. 1777 to 1877 UGLE

16 Lodge of the Nine Muses 1777-1877

“That for want of such a communication this Lodge was not informed of
such proceeding for a series of years, until by accident the two Lodges held their
meeting on the same evening, and when the Lodge was not permitted to have the
use of its own furniture, upon a pretence that Bro. Ruspini had made a present of it to the
Prince of Wales’ Lodge!!
“That as to the remaining part of the said second Resolution, whereby the
Brethren of the Prince of Wales’ Lodge express their ‘indignation’ as to the acts
done by the Lodge in dealing with their own property, they are perfectly indifferent
to the ‘indignation’ so expressed. Nor do they hold themselves accountable to the
Prince of Wales’ Lodge for the removal of their own property from one place to another.
That this Lodge can only consider such expressions of indignation (for a cause
so inadequate) as the effect of momentary irritation, originating in an imperfect
view of the case; and therefore this Lodge, in that spirit of charity and goodwill
so peculiarly the attributes of the Masonic Institution, returns hearty good wishes
for the prosperity of the Prince of Wales’ Lodge, and success to the Brethren
thereof in all their lawful undertakings.”

With this communication this singular dispute closed. The length of the
quotation will be pardoned on account of the exceptional character and the spirited
tone of the controversy. We cannot but feel that, with much dispute, seriousness on
either side, there was also a touch of banter, which shows that the principles of
fraternity were not abandoned, and that there was a brotherly remembrance of the
homely proverb, “Hard words break no bones”. The fact that the candlesticks were
used on an occasion when the two Lodges met, and that there was thus evidently
no concealment made of the matter on the part of the Prince of Wales’s Lodge,
affords evidence of the bona fides of that body; and the expression of their feeling
towards Bro. Ruspini after the property had been restored to its lawful owners,
and the right of Bro. Ruspini to present them to any body had been impugned,
tends further to show that the whole matter originated in nothing worse than a
misapprehension, which it must be confessed appears to have been rectified by the
Nine Muses in a rather summary fashion. One inquiry suggested by the event we
cannot satisfactorily answer, viz., how it was possible that furniture belonging to

13 Close of the dispute.