The Jurisdiction Question.

THE JURISDICTION QUESTION .

THE Freemasons' Repositonj for last month contains an article written for its pages by Bro . Robert Ramsey , Orillia , Ontario , entitled " The ' English ' Lodges in Montreal , " iu which that brother declares that the time is at hand , if it is not actually arrived , -when it will be the duty

of the Grand Lodge of Quebec to vindicate its dignity , and " take some action in the premises . What that action will be every Mason knows . " He goes on to say , " Once the Grand Lodge of Quebec declares that these Lodges shall no longer work within her territorial jurisdiction without her

consent , and that they must renounce the allegiance to the Grand Lodge of England , the Bubicon will he crossed , and they will either have to yield or find themselves comparatively isolated , as it stands to reason that those Grand Bodies that have welcomed the Grand Lodge of Quebec

into their sisterhood will uphold her position and maintain her rights . The result would be , the brethren of St . Paul , St . George , and St . Lawrence would , in all probability ,

find the doors of the majority of Lodges closed against them ; they would find themselves excluded from the Chapters in their own Province , and we hardly think the Scottish Rite of Canada wonld venture to receive

clandestine Masons within the precincts of its subordinate bodies and its Supreme Grand Council . " It is , of course , very kind of Bro . ' Ramsey to say that " these ' English ' Lodges have , from the formation of the Grand Lodge of Quebec in 1869 , been treated with leniency and courtesy by

that Supreme Masonic Body during all that period , " and no great harm is done if he describes their existence as " this anomaly ' in a jurisdiction that has from its formation declared ' the doctrines of exclusive Grand Lodge Sovereignty . ' " We say no great harm is clone if he describes

them thus , or as a parallelopipedon or plesiosaurus . What is desirable , however , is , that Bro . Ramsey should support his statements by something tang ible in the shape of argument , and in this respect we are very far from being able to congratulate him . Granted that " the Grand Secretary

of England , Right Worship ful Bro . Col . Shadwell Gierke , apparently thinks that time will heal the trouble , so that they will gradually float into the arms of the Grand Locige of Quebec . " This certainly proves that our Grand Secretary possesses , what no one has yet denied , sound common

sense , but it does not prove there is an immediate necessity for disturbing the existing state of affairs as between " these ' English ' Lodges in Montreal" and the daughter Lodges of the Grand Lodge of Quebec any more now in 1882 than in 1880 , 1875 , 1870 , or , in short ,

in any other of the dozen or so years during which the Grand Lodge of Quebec has had a separate and independent existence . It may be thafc " the Freemason , of London , England , is evidently of the same opinion , " and if it pleases Brother Ramsey , we are prepared to

accept the qualification he has appended to the second proposition , " though it attempts , in a prevaricating manner , to argue that Brother Graham , the erudite Grand Master of Quebec , was mistaken , when he pointed out to his Grand Locige that the Grand Lodge of England

upheld the doctrine of Exclusive Grand Lodge Sovereignty ; although he proved it from the Constitution of that Supreme Body . " We are of the same mind as the Freemason , and , though we cannot call to mind in what respect our London contemporary has shown anything like "

prevarication ' in its statements , we , like it , are of opinion that even "the erudite G . M . of Quebec was mistaken , " aud that he was successful in " proving " nothing out of our Constitutions which in the least justifies the position he has taken up . But even the acceptation of this second

proposition , with its appended qualification , will not suffice to change a mere statement into a sound argument . Bro . Hughan , too , bad no doubt pointed out " that these Lodges must necessarily in time change their allegiance , " but this is not the same thing as arguing that the necessity for

such a change taking place , or rather being forced upon these Lodges , is proved beyond question . On the contrary , while suggesting "that all subordinate Lodges would do well to join it , ancl heartily aud invitedly 'fall into line , ' according to the prayer of our good Brother Dr .

Graham , the esteemed and learned Grancl Master of that , energetic body "—that is , the Grand Lochj-e of Quebec — he is careful to add the qualification . " Of course , if they wish to continue under their parent Grand Lodge , v ; ell let them . Why not ? They have the Masonic right so to do

The Jurisdiction Question.

and " in continuation , " any way , so far as we can judge , it is a question of time . " Again , in describing what he considers to be " the only fair basis on which new Grand Lodges can be established , cither in our Colonies , or elsewhere , " Bro . Hughan lays down the following conditionssee his communication to the London Freemason of 6 th

May last—namely : — " 1 . A majority of the Lodges and members must agree to the formation of a Grand Lodge in their state , province , territory , or country . " 2 . The minority objecting to be entitled to the pri . vileges they enjoyed previously .

" 3 . On formation of the new Grand Lodge , no wenwarrants to be granted by any other Grand Lodge . " 4 . Recognition by other Grand Lodges to be subject

to these conditions . " 5 . The new Grand Lodge only to be Sovereign , when all the subordinate lodges have joined ; then to have exclu sive jurisdiction . "

It is impossible there can be any doubt as to the mean - ing of Bro . Hughan in the foregoing five conditions , and with these to guide him we trust Bro . Ramsey will see his way clear to settling the difference between Bro . Hughan ' s suggestion that" any way , so far as we can judge , it is bnt

a question of time " when " the ' English' Lodges in Montreal " may see fit to change their allegiance—which , by the way , is not quite the same thing as " that these Lodges miist necessarily in time change their allegiance—and the clear and absolute statement that , if any Lodges are

desirous of retaining their old allegiance , -when " m our colonies or elsewhere " a new Grand Lodge is set np , " they have the Masonic right so to do . " Bro . Ramsey has quoted a suggestion of Bro . Hughan ' s as being favourable to his own views , and gives that suggestion all the force of a

clear and irrefutable proposition . The least we have the right to expect from him is that , in forming his estimate of Bro . Hughan ' s opinion , he will be guided by the latter ' s statement as to what is legal in preference to his suggestion as to what , in certain circumstances , and at some time or another , more or less remote , may be thought expedient .

The real case stands thus : Bro . Ramsey and those who are of his opinion argue , or rather assert , that where a majority of Lodges in a British Colony agree among themselves to throw off their allegiance to the mother Grand Lodge and set up one of their own , the minority is under

the necessity of following their example . The majority has the right to change its allegiance , the minority has the rig ht to remain loyal to the Grand Lodge which created it . They ignore utterly the fact that , in a matter of this kind freedom is of the very essence of

Freemasonry . This is exactly one of those instances in which a phrase that has latterly become familiar in the English political world becomes applicable — " Force is no remedy . " It may be expedient , it may be desirable that all Masonic Lodges situated within the

territorial limits of Quebec should acknowledge the sovereign independence of its Grand Lodge . But so long as there are Lodges constituted by England—and all the three Lodges in question were warranted , as has been before remarked elsewhere , years before the Quebec Grand Lodge

was dreamt of—we say , so long as any Lodges so constituted prefer remaining under English rule to placing themselves under that of the new Grand Lodge , so long , to put it in Bro . Hughan ' s " emphatic way , " they have the Masonic right so to do ? " Again , these three Lodges were

in existence before Canada separated herself Masomcally from England , and when the latter recognised the former , it made it a condition , among others , of that recognition , that such Lodges as were desirous of retaining their

allegiance to ifc should have the right to do so . Canada accepted the condition , and for the quarter of a century that has since elapsed the three Lodges have remained true to their old love . And it will take a score or two of " erudite Dr . Grahams " to convince us that what Canada

did gracefully , and without sacrifice either of her dignity or her independence , Quebec cannot do in like manner and without any such sacrifice . There is yet another reason , which ought to have some weight -with Bro . Ramsey and those of his way of thinking . It is not , perhaps , a difficult

matter to isolate—that is , send to Coventry— a tew mm viduals , but it will hardly be possible to isolate three whole Lodges , two of which have R . A . Chapters attached co them ; and even " the erudite Grand Master of Q ue " ? . must have too much sense and too high an opinion of his Canadian brother Masons to suppose that Canada vml