United Grand Lodge.

amounted to £ 17 , 500 . Bro . George Everett Grand Treasurer seconded the motion , which was carried . With respect to the two Petitions bronght under the notice o Grni-d Tndgo , Brother Philbrick , Q . C , Grand Registrir sa > d : The question involved was first raised

abont three years u ^ o , at tho time of tho establishment of a Gr -nd Lodge in Now South Wales , which was understood at the time to be an unam ' mnn * act . Shortly afterwards , however , a minority of 'he 'fx'mbers of one E" * gl sh Lodge thero—the Cambrian , No . G 5 G—wrote home for the opinion

of myself as Grand Registrar , as to whether or not a minority of their members could retain the warrant under the Gr . ind Lodge < , f Knghiud . In view of tho important fact that the Grand Lodgo of New South Wales had become a legal , recognised Masonio body , I came to the

conclusion that Article 219 Book of Constitutions did not apply to such a case . That Rule , which had boon framed by a Sub-Committee , of which I myself was a member , at the revision of the Constitutions in tho year 1883 , being , in my view , simply intended as a domestic rognlation ^

practically to meet tho ordinary caso of a Lodgo dying out from loss of members by death or resignation , and not that of a Lodge whore tho majority of its former members joined another recognised local Constitution , I therefore gave my opinion to that effect . On the Lodge referred to

subsequently laying the matter before the Colonial Board they adopted the opinion thus expressed by myself . Since then another question has arisen iu New Zealand which , althongh apparently at the time similar to the former , now , on further elucidation of the facts , appears to have an

important difference . When this latter question was first laid by the District Grand Master of Wellington , New Zealand , before me for opinion , it was believed that the Grand Lodge movement in that colony was strongly supported , and would speedily come to a successful issue . On these

grounds , and it may be said somewhat in anticipation , I quoted in reply the case of the Cambrian Lodge in New South Wales , and the decision of the Colonial Board thereon . Since then , however , it has been found that the movement in New Zealand is not of tbe character supposed , and that

there seems no probability of its present success . Our Graud Lodge has therefore refused to recognise the sostyled "Grand Lodge of Now Zealand . " I am consequently of opinion that tho cases of New South Wales and New Zealand differ essentially , and while I still hold the view

that where a local governing Masonic body is established and duly recognised , it becomes advisable , as a matter of Masonic policy and harmony , tbat the adhesion of a Lodge to it by the act of the majority of the members who compose that Lodgo may be permitted . I at the same

time consider that where there is no such local body as a Grand Lodgo duly recognised , and where the brethren would therefore practically be quitting the ranks of lawful , that is regular , Masonry , to join an irregular body , a minority of three may be , and if they desire it should be ,

permitted to continue to hold their warrant . I , therefore , now ask Grand Lodge to adopt this view , and to pass the following resolution : "Tbat Grand Lodge is of opinion

that any Lodgo under the English Constitution in New Zealand is entitled to retain its warrant and exercise its lawful Masonic privileges , notwithstanding the fact that a majority of its members may have seceded . "

Bro . Thos . Fenn , President of the Board of General Purposes , said : The matter brought before Grand Lodge by our Bro . Grand Registrar has been under consideration and the subject of discussion for same time , and I am satisfied that the course recommended by the Grand

Registrar ia the safest and the proper course to adopt . I was also a member of the Sub-Committee by whom the new Book of Constitutions was framed ; this Sub-Committee traced every Article in the old Book to its origin , and not only every Article , but every alteration made in each

Article in the 14 editions through whicb that Book had passed from the time of the Union . Article 219 was found to have originated iu an incident which occurred iu the last century , and had reference to a particular Lodgo and certain individml members of it . lb was altered

subsequently , and iu the edition of 1874—the edition immediately before the present—the words , " who adhere as to their allegiance , " in consequence of this alteration , had no definite meaning , although perfectly intelligible and

significant in the original Article . Tbe Sub-Committee struck out those words , deeming it better that the Article should have reference only to the cases referred to by the Grand Registrar , and that those other cases to which the

United Grand Lodge.

words struck out had been supposed to be applicable , Grand Lodge should have a free hand to deal with them as circumstances , policy , expediency , and Masonio harmony might suggest . Our Brother Grand Registrar has gono so

fully into the matter that it cannot bo necessary for mo to say more than , firstly and secondly , to express an earnest hope that Grand Lodgo will adopt it . Tho recommendation was then unanimously agreed to . Grand Lodge wns then closed in form and adjourned .

The following is the result , declared at a later hour of the evening , of the election to the Board of General Purposes : — Bros . George Read , Georgo R . Langley , E . Charles Mulvey , Chas . J . R . Tijoa , Georgo B . Chapman , James Bunker , William Vincent , William Fisher , Simon H . Goldschraidt , William Peter Brown , George Coop , and Charles Dairy .

Masonic Offences.

MASONIC OFFENCES .

THERE is a wide-spread misapprehension in the Craft as to what constitutes a Masonic offence . This is apparent not only from frequent inconsiderate colloquial

remarks of Brethren , but from action taken in the Lodges iu preferring charges , and from tho seemingly careful statements of certain writers in Masonic journals , and in reports on Correspondence to Grand Lodges .

Masonic offences , like everything in Freemasonry , aro based on principle , and governed by law—and not profane , but Masonio principle and law . The prolific source of error in this matter is the enthronement of the civil and criminal law of the

Commonwealth in the p lace of the organic law of Freemasonry . Each is sovereign in its own domain , but neither can be lawfully made to usurp the place of the other . The State is supreme over its subjects , Freemasonry over its .

Let us refer , first , to the attempted application of civil law to the determination of Masonic questions . No dispute between Masons concerning a matter of merely civil law can be rightfully considered or adjudicated in a Masonic Lodge . For example : If one Mason owes

another a debt , say in the ordinary conrse of trade , the mere fact of the non-payment of this debt will not justify the creditor in bringing charges of unmasonic conduct against the debtor in his Lodge . Freemasonry takes no cognizance

of money disputes between Masons . The civil courts , and they alone , determine these , and to thera the Brother who believes himself injured must resort . A Lodgo is not a justice ' s court for the recovery of debts .

Even the Stato Courts are jealous of their own peculiar jurisdiction , so that if an action be brought in a criminal court for the purpose of collecting a debt , the action will fall , and the party be left to his civil remedy . Much more

is it true , that if a Brother seeks to collect a debt in a Lodge by preferring charges against his Brother Mason , the Lodge will refuse to consider his claim , and leave him to his civil action .

Next , let us refer to the attempted application of the criminal law of the Commonwealth to the determination of Masonic questions . A criminal offence , no more than a civil offence , ia per se a Masonic offence . In order to render either of these a

Masonic offence , another essential and purely Masonic ingredient must enter . No infraction of a State law , whether it be civil or criminal , becomes thereby a breach of Masonic law , unless there be also an injury wrought . to Freemasonry itself , or to a Freemason as a Freemason . It

is not his act against a Brother , civilly , or against him and tho State , criminally , that constitutes a Masonic offence , but it is the dishonour , the disgrace , the defilement " brought upon the Craft , which Freemasonry regards—for

example , by his conviction in a criminal court of the land of a heinous offence . This is where his criminality touches and injures Freemasonry , and because of this , and only because of this , his criminal offence becomes also a Masonic offence .

Of course we are now treating of criminal offences which have no Masonic quality per se , for if this ingredient be present , Freemasonry has jurisdiction of the crimo

whether the law of the land punishes it or not . We may fitly conclude our brief consideration of this subject by adverting to those offences which are per se—in themselves—Masonic offences . While we are here writing exclusively for Freemasons