Status Of Past Masters.

STATUS OF PAST MASTERS .

THIS vexed question is far from being settled . The resolution arrived at in Grand Lodge on the 8 th inst . is not final ; it may be open to revision , if not to reversal . Mneh will depend npon the manner in which the question is approached , and no greater ill could befall the Craft

than by importing the spirit of rivalry into the argument . It is not a ^ matter of precedence or power between London and Provincial Lodges that is now in dispute , but one affecting the deepest interests of the whole body . As such it should be discussed witb reverence and caution ,

with a due regard to the many points involved , and with a view to harmony of working . It is to be feared that certain Provincial brethren are labouring under the impression that the members of London Lodges are bostile to the proposed change , not because of the change itself so

much , btit becanse of the source whence it comes . Bro . Beach , the R . W . Provincial Grand Master of Hampshire , alluded to the subject at the recent Provincial Grand Lodge gathering , and the tone of his remarks sounds more like that of triumph than of confidence in right . The report

of his speech in our contemporary is meagre and , it may be , misleading . It would be wise , therefore , not to judge too severely in the absence of the fuller text . Yet there is

something in the spirit of what is recorded that should arouse thoughtful consideration and awaken the desire for a full and righteous inquiry . Bro . Beach stated that there was an idea that the Provinces were to be lessened in

power , that in consequence of that idea Provincial brethren had mustered in force to show that they were not to he easily ignored , and that the result showed that they were to have greater power than heretofore . It is to be regretted that something like a challenge to the attitude

assumed by the Provinces was given by our contemporary prior to the meeting of Special Grand Lodge . No doubt tbe idea of the writer was to impress upon the brethren generally the desirability of assembling in large numbers m order that the grave matter at issue should have the

advantage of the experience and of the trained minds of the rulers of the Craft . But that fact was not clearly defined , and the impression of rivalry got abroad , much to the detriment of that calmness of "judgment so necessarv

in dealing with a question involving nothing less than a complete revolution in practice . We are deeply interested in this question ; we have formed a strong opinion upon it ; but we are not so committed to finality as to refuse to listen to the other side , and we are open even to admit our error

« it can be made clear to us . We repudiate any feeling of hostilit y to the Provincial brethren . There should be no question of party in Masonry , and the only point worthy or consideration is—What is best for the Craft at large ? io depart from this rule is to let loose passion , to introduce personal feeling , and to make the determination of the

question at issue a battle of parties . Discord , and not brotherl y love , would be the result . No brother has a monopoly of sense , of rierht . or of orincinle * . nor do these

qualities necessarily reside in London in contradistinction to the provinces , and vice versa . The whole body are the seat of wisdom , and they should discuss the question in its broadest sense , and with due regard to the great responsibilit y they owe to the Constitution , it cannot be said that the ground has been fairl y and

Status Of Past Masters.

fully covered . The discussion on the 8 th inst . was far from being exhaustive . The most serious point raised was left in an unsatisfactory condition . It was contended that a private Lodge had the power to appoint a joining member a Past Master of tho Lodge provided he lawfully held a

similar position in his Mother Lodge . This contention was disputed , and upon appeal to authority it was stated that some private Lodges had acted in the manner described , but that there was no written law either for or against the custom . By rule 141 it is provided that if no Past Master

of the Lodge is present at a regularly constituted meeting , then the senior Past Master in attendance , being a subscribing member of a Lodge , should preside . That rule simply embodies what appears to us to be the inevitable , for we hold that only a Master or Past Master can rule in

the Lodge . Under the circumstances then , there is no alternative than to ask a Past Master to preside , and courtesy suggests that it should be the oldest Past Master in rank present . The office of Master of a Lodge is one of the fundamental principles of the Order . The title of Past

Master and the privileges attached thereto are conferred by the Constitution , whereas rank is regulated by the custom of the Lodges . A Lodge cannot deprive a Past Master of his title when once it has been properly obtained , but it can define the position or rank he shall hold in the

Lodge . The practice , no doubt , is that of succession upon a plan well understood , but various circumstances might intervene to disturb the regular order of things . Suppose a Past Master leaves his Mother Lodge altogether for a time and returns , is it not within the province of the

Lodge to determine what rank the returned prodigal shall hold ? He might have passed the chair in another Lodge , and as the new law runs , the Mother Lodge would be compelled , if they readmitted him , to give him a certain and immediate rank , whether they approved or not . They

might blackball him , of course , but that would intensify a practice that all good Masons would be glad were it only used on very rare and extreme occasions . The evil of tbe whole thing is that it interferes with the privileges of

private Lodges , perpetuates native rank in a foreign home , assumes the possession of merit , and compels rewards independent of the sanction of judgment , of right , and of experience . Surely a Lodge has as much right to determine the rank of its members as it has to admit them . Both

conditions can be harmonised with the fundamental principles of the Craft . There are rules for the guidance of Lodges in the admission of candidates , but they leave much to the judgment of the brethren . Essential principles are defined and protected , in other respects the

largest liberty is allowed . A similar law with regard to Past Masters would meet every requirement . Let it be understood that a private Lodge has the power to regulate , not confer , rank , and all that is necessary would be yielded . The title of a Past Master is outside of the control of the

Lodges , but the right to define the position he shall hold after he has gained the title , ought to be their especial right . It is so with regard to their own members , and there is no reason why a stranger should be allowed snnAri ' nr nrivilflcfis . If the new law is to stand , then orivate

Lodges can only exercise their right in one way . Why drive them to an unpleasant necessity ? It would be more reasonable to permit of freedom in its fullest extent rather than impose conditions which in many cases at least will be found intolerable . There is al ! the difference in the