-
Articles/Ads
Article MASONIC TROUBLE IN NEW SOUTH WALES Page 1 of 2 Article MASONIC TROUBLE IN NEW SOUTH WALES Page 1 of 2 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Masonic Trouble In New South Wales
MASONIC TROUBLE IN NEW SOUTH WALES
Bv Buo . JACOI " . NORTON . THE discord between tho Ancients and Moderns , between the G . L . of England and of York , between tho G . L . of Scotland and Kilwinning Lodge , are familiar to the reader . In Boston , we bad also warfare between Masons of English origin , Scotch origin ,
Ancient origin , aud Army Lodge origin . AVithin forty years Neiv York had three distinct Grand Lodges at tho samo time , who denounced each other as clandestine , sjmrious , rebels , & o . Between 1860 and 1867 we had here a triangular fight ( Midshipman Easy fashion ) between Illnstriouses , Thrice Illnstriouses , Mostlllnstriouses , and other kinds of Illnstriouses of the Scotch Kite . Canada also had
strife with England , Quebec Avith Canada , and even now some skirmishing is going on between Quebec and Scotland . The Coloured Grand Lodges in the United States aro also stigmatized thero as rebels , illegitimates , 4 c . And now , a New South Wales pamphlet
sent to the G . L . at Boston , U . S ., informs me that similar > varfaro has broken out there , and that the usual Masonio adjectives , such as rebel , schismatic , & c , are there flying round very lively among Masons , who , of all other people in the Avorld , ought to lovo each other as brethren .
Upon investigation , I have come to the conclusion that the origin of most of our troubles is caused by blind belief in ancient landmarks , and by placing blind faith in self-appointed expounders of those landmarks . " Ancient landmarks " Avas tho cause or excuse of the secession of tho Ancients ; aud " ancient landmarks " is appealed to by the New South Wales secessionists ; and in every dispute , each party appeals to ancient landmarks .
To add to the confusion , our jurists persuade the Craft that it has to obey written and unwritten Masonic laws . Now wo know that constant wrangling is going on among great lawyers about the meaning of wi'itten laws . It is even claimed that " a coach and six can be driven through any Act of Parliament . " The Judges of the Supreme Court of the United States have more than once been at loggerheads as to whether certain laws meant luhite or black . It then it is
impossible to agree about written laws , how can we expect agreement about unwritten IRAVS ? and between the written and unwritten laws , the Masonic law expounders manage some how to keep tho brotherhood in hot water . Chartering of Lodges was ordained in the Constitution of 1721 ; tho establishment of Provincial Grand Lodges Avas at first done by
tho mere assumption of a G . M ., but was afterwards confirmed by enactments . But Avhether a G . M . granted a mere charter to brethren residing in a colony , or gave them a commission or deputation to establish a Prov . G . L ., tho Charter or Deputation may be said to havo been the contract between the G . L . at homo and its subordinate abroad , which both bound themselves to observe . In
tho course of time , however , the loyalty of the Provincials began to cool down . The clues to the parent G . L . wero sent irregularly , or not at all . " Why should we send money [ thoy began to say ] to Eng . land , when wc t ; et nothing in return ? " and next , perhaps the Grand Sec . at home delayed answering a letter to the Provincials , Avhich waa magnified as a great , grievance ; and then the Provincials began to
consult learned jurists as to ancient landmarks , and then a convention was called who passed resolutions after tho pattern of our "American Declaration of Independence , " winding np with " our inherent rights , " to dub each other Bight Worshipfuls and Most Worshipfuls ; and then thoy printed their Proceedings and sent them to other G . Lodges , who , having themselves seceded at a recent or
remote time from their own parent Grand Lodges , conld of course do no less than acknowledge tho new G . L . as regular and orthodox . But on looking seriously at these Proceedings , I cannot help thinking that tho seceders are in the first place guilty of breaking the contract to which they agree to adhere ; and second , as every Master and P . M . took an oath , or gave a solemn promise at his
installation , of allegiance to tho parent G . L ., by taking part in tho secession movement , all seem to me to commit perjnry or , at least , a violation of their sacred pledges . To ease their conscience they may throw tbe blame , real or imaginary , on the home G . L ., or excuse themselves that others havo done so before . But their most important bulwark is the precedents , and landmarks , which learned jurists
have provided for such an occasion . On theother hand the home G . Lodges ought to have been sufficiently acquainted with bnman nature to foresee that a timo would come when its colonial children would desire to be independent , and therefore laws ought to exist , specifying the conditions of peaceful separation , without necessitating the Provincials having to violate their
obligations . And in that respect Americans act more justly towards their chartered Lodges iu tho territories . I do not know the precise specifications in the charters , but I do know that whenever Lodges iu a territory choose to organize a G . L ., the parent G . L . throws no obstacle in their way , but , on tho contrary , Avish tho new G . L . God speed .
There aro , however , some cases in the Avorkiug of Colonial Lodges , which sometimes compel the home Grand Lodges to take part in tho fight . And such is tho case in New South Wales . It seems that there aro altogether about fifty Lodges in that Colony , chartered respectively by the Graud Lodges of England , Ireland , and Scotland . Up to tho time of the formation of the new G . L . perfect concord
reigned among the brethren of theso nationalities , and the usual Masonic courtesies wero exchanged between them . Now , twelve out of the said fifty Lodges have organized tho new G . L ., and the said " iwelve-Lodge" Grand-Lodge appealed to the G . L . of Massachusetts , not alone for recognition , but also to acknowledge its right to subjugate
the remaining thirty-eight Lodges to its sway . And in case the said thirty-eight Lodges should refuse to submit , the said G . L . of Massachusetts should be bound to consider the said thirty-eight Lodges as excommunicated from Masonry , or in other words , they aro thenceforth to be branded as " schismatics , " " spurious , " " clandestine , " & o . And
Masonic Trouble In New South Wales
for this atrocious demand thoy cite a learned jurist ( and if a learned jurist says so , our credulous Masons of course believe it must be so ) Well , tho learned jurist , Bro . Paton , laid down the following law : — "A Grand Lodge thus formed , by the union of not loss than threo
Lodges in a convention , at once assumes all tho prerogatives of a Grand Lodge , and acquires exclusive Masonio jurisdiction in the territory , [ tho italicising is theirs ] aud noLodge can continue to e . rist , or be subsequently established , e . ecept under Us authority , within the said territory . "
The truth , however is , Bro . Paton copied that law ( and , indeed , aa well tho rest of his laws ) from Dr . Mackcy ' s book of Masonio Jurisprudence . And Dr . Mackoy got that law from hearsay—a kind of au unwritten law . That law has certainly never been enacted by either of the three Grand Lodges in Great Britain and Ireland ; and as far as I know , by no Grand Lodge in tho world ; it is merely an
American notion , and no ono knows who originated it . In 1870 Bro . W . S . Gardner , G . M . of Massachusetts , in order to invalidate the Prince Hall Grand Lodgo ( coloured G . L . ) in Boston , cited the alleged Three Lodge Law , and hence , as the Princo Hall G . L . was organised by only one Lodge , he therefore pronounced it , spurious , clandestine , illegitimate , & c . In my review of Bro . Gardner ' s address , I called
his attention to tho fact that the G . L . of York was formed by one Lodge , that of New Hampshire was formed by two Lodges , that of Rhode Island was also formed by two Lodges . Tho G . L . of Massachusetts in 1777 was formed by no Lodge at all , a solitary Master of a dormant Lodge was the only Lodgo officer then present , and I have since then ascertained that previous to the union of tho Masons
of English origin with those of Scotch origin , several brethren belonging to tho former met in convention , dubbed each other Right Worshipfuls and Most Worshipfuls , declared themselves an inde . pendent Grand Lodge , and then tho farco was performed of tho two Grand Masters acknowledging each other ' s legality , then thoy both resigned , and then one of them Avas elected . But what I beg to call
particular attention to is , thafc tho new G . L . of 1792 , which the older G . L . acknowledged as legal and orthodox , was also organised and perfected Avithout tho presence of Lodge Officers . If then a G . L . could bo legally created fifteen years after another was established , and if Grand Lodges could then bo formed by less than threo Lodges , and by no Lodges at all , why cannot the samo procedure be held
legal and orthodox now ? On tho other hand , " exclusive Masonic jurisdiction" may be enacted as a local law , but it cannot be called a fundamental Masonic law ; for instance , for about sixty years two Grand Lodges exercised co-ordinate jurisdiction in England ; and in 1813 each Grand Lodge acknowledged and confessed that the other Grand Lodgo was just as
legal and orthodox during thoso sixty years as it was itself —( just the same as tbe two Grand Lodges in Massachusetts did in 1792 ) . In Germany there are now eight Grand Lodges exercising co-ordinate jurisdiction , and in Franco there are two such Grand Bodies . When German or French brethren travel abroad , and wish to visit Lodges , no Lodgo would refuse them admission , because they belong to this
or to that G . L . The G . L . of Scotland before 1813 used to admit both ancients and moderns into its Lodges , and , Avhen tho split took place near thirty years ago in the G . L . of New York , both parties sent delegates to tho G . L . of England to plead their respective claims . The G . L . of England , after hearing what each had to say , decided not to interfere , but it extended the hand of good fellowship to both
parties alike . Either of the New York parties were welcomed in English Lodges , and therein the G . L . of England exercised good sound common sense , and I hope and trust that when the American Coloured Mason question shall be brought to the notice of the G . L , of England , that it will then exercise the same common sense towards tho members of the American Coloured Lodges as it did towards tho
New York brethren above referred to . Again , thero was an English Provincial Grand Lodge in Frankforton-the-Maine , as early as 1761 . ( See " Findel's History , " pp 247 and 307 ) . In 1783 tho Eclectic Union G . L . was formed , which is still in existence . In 1814 , tbe brethren belonging to a Lodge at Frankfort , holding its charter from the G . O . of Franco , were ordered by tho
Government to sever their connection with tho French G . O . The Christian members of the said Lodge got a charter in Germany , but the Jewish members of tho same Lodge could get no charter from any German G . L . In this dilemma the Jewish Masons applied to the Duke of Sussex , G . M . of England , who granted them the desired charter . Thereupon , says Bro . Findel , p 514 : —
" The English Provincial G . L . at Frankfort appealed to the treaty concluded with London , by virtue of which Lodges in her district could only be erected by her and with her consent , and she therefore protested against the conduct of tho mother G . L . The latter , however , remained firm to her purpose . " We see , then , that even iu Masonry " There is no rule Avithout an
exception . " Tho fact is , laws were made for Masonry , but Masonry was not made for laws , and hence , when Masonic laAvs are based npon justice , the Craft at large will respect them , but if they are based upon local prejudices , the Craft Avill treat them with contempt . Guided by that principle , the G . O . of France , the United Grand Lodges of Germany , besides other Grand Lodges , have , in spite of the
protests of American Grand Lodges , acknowledged somo of our American coloured Grand Lodges . To make , therefore , Masonic laws universally respected , thoso laws should be based upon common senso upon just principles—or , in other words , thoso laws must accord Avith the golden rule , " Do unto others as you wish others to do unto yon . " Agreeably to tho above rules , I respectfully advise Grand Lodges to acknowledge tho new Grand Lodgo of Now South Wales . But ,
at the same time , it must be given to understand that the will and pleasure of the remaining thirty-eight Lodges must be respected by all parties . The said Lodges have done nothing to forfeit their rights , and there is no reason ( except of so-called learned jurists ) why they shonld be dragooned to obey the dictum of the 12 Lodge Grand Lodge . There has been no exclusive Masonic jurisdiction in N . S . W . hitherto j there is no exclusive jurisdiction there now , and there can
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Masonic Trouble In New South Wales
MASONIC TROUBLE IN NEW SOUTH WALES
Bv Buo . JACOI " . NORTON . THE discord between tho Ancients and Moderns , between the G . L . of England and of York , between tho G . L . of Scotland and Kilwinning Lodge , are familiar to the reader . In Boston , we bad also warfare between Masons of English origin , Scotch origin ,
Ancient origin , aud Army Lodge origin . AVithin forty years Neiv York had three distinct Grand Lodges at tho samo time , who denounced each other as clandestine , sjmrious , rebels , & o . Between 1860 and 1867 we had here a triangular fight ( Midshipman Easy fashion ) between Illnstriouses , Thrice Illnstriouses , Mostlllnstriouses , and other kinds of Illnstriouses of the Scotch Kite . Canada also had
strife with England , Quebec Avith Canada , and even now some skirmishing is going on between Quebec and Scotland . The Coloured Grand Lodges in the United States aro also stigmatized thero as rebels , illegitimates , 4 c . And now , a New South Wales pamphlet
sent to the G . L . at Boston , U . S ., informs me that similar > varfaro has broken out there , and that the usual Masonio adjectives , such as rebel , schismatic , & c , are there flying round very lively among Masons , who , of all other people in the Avorld , ought to lovo each other as brethren .
Upon investigation , I have come to the conclusion that the origin of most of our troubles is caused by blind belief in ancient landmarks , and by placing blind faith in self-appointed expounders of those landmarks . " Ancient landmarks " Avas tho cause or excuse of the secession of tho Ancients ; aud " ancient landmarks " is appealed to by the New South Wales secessionists ; and in every dispute , each party appeals to ancient landmarks .
To add to the confusion , our jurists persuade the Craft that it has to obey written and unwritten Masonic laws . Now wo know that constant wrangling is going on among great lawyers about the meaning of wi'itten laws . It is even claimed that " a coach and six can be driven through any Act of Parliament . " The Judges of the Supreme Court of the United States have more than once been at loggerheads as to whether certain laws meant luhite or black . It then it is
impossible to agree about written laws , how can we expect agreement about unwritten IRAVS ? and between the written and unwritten laws , the Masonic law expounders manage some how to keep tho brotherhood in hot water . Chartering of Lodges was ordained in the Constitution of 1721 ; tho establishment of Provincial Grand Lodges Avas at first done by
tho mere assumption of a G . M ., but was afterwards confirmed by enactments . But Avhether a G . M . granted a mere charter to brethren residing in a colony , or gave them a commission or deputation to establish a Prov . G . L ., tho Charter or Deputation may be said to havo been the contract between the G . L . at homo and its subordinate abroad , which both bound themselves to observe . In
tho course of time , however , the loyalty of the Provincials began to cool down . The clues to the parent G . L . wero sent irregularly , or not at all . " Why should we send money [ thoy began to say ] to Eng . land , when wc t ; et nothing in return ? " and next , perhaps the Grand Sec . at home delayed answering a letter to the Provincials , Avhich waa magnified as a great , grievance ; and then the Provincials began to
consult learned jurists as to ancient landmarks , and then a convention was called who passed resolutions after tho pattern of our "American Declaration of Independence , " winding np with " our inherent rights , " to dub each other Bight Worshipfuls and Most Worshipfuls ; and then thoy printed their Proceedings and sent them to other G . Lodges , who , having themselves seceded at a recent or
remote time from their own parent Grand Lodges , conld of course do no less than acknowledge tho new G . L . as regular and orthodox . But on looking seriously at these Proceedings , I cannot help thinking that tho seceders are in the first place guilty of breaking the contract to which they agree to adhere ; and second , as every Master and P . M . took an oath , or gave a solemn promise at his
installation , of allegiance to tho parent G . L ., by taking part in tho secession movement , all seem to me to commit perjnry or , at least , a violation of their sacred pledges . To ease their conscience they may throw tbe blame , real or imaginary , on the home G . L ., or excuse themselves that others havo done so before . But their most important bulwark is the precedents , and landmarks , which learned jurists
have provided for such an occasion . On theother hand the home G . Lodges ought to have been sufficiently acquainted with bnman nature to foresee that a timo would come when its colonial children would desire to be independent , and therefore laws ought to exist , specifying the conditions of peaceful separation , without necessitating the Provincials having to violate their
obligations . And in that respect Americans act more justly towards their chartered Lodges iu tho territories . I do not know the precise specifications in the charters , but I do know that whenever Lodges iu a territory choose to organize a G . L ., the parent G . L . throws no obstacle in their way , but , on tho contrary , Avish tho new G . L . God speed .
There aro , however , some cases in the Avorkiug of Colonial Lodges , which sometimes compel the home Grand Lodges to take part in tho fight . And such is tho case in New South Wales . It seems that there aro altogether about fifty Lodges in that Colony , chartered respectively by the Graud Lodges of England , Ireland , and Scotland . Up to tho time of the formation of the new G . L . perfect concord
reigned among the brethren of theso nationalities , and the usual Masonic courtesies wero exchanged between them . Now , twelve out of the said fifty Lodges have organized tho new G . L ., and the said " iwelve-Lodge" Grand-Lodge appealed to the G . L . of Massachusetts , not alone for recognition , but also to acknowledge its right to subjugate
the remaining thirty-eight Lodges to its sway . And in case the said thirty-eight Lodges should refuse to submit , the said G . L . of Massachusetts should be bound to consider the said thirty-eight Lodges as excommunicated from Masonry , or in other words , they aro thenceforth to be branded as " schismatics , " " spurious , " " clandestine , " & o . And
Masonic Trouble In New South Wales
for this atrocious demand thoy cite a learned jurist ( and if a learned jurist says so , our credulous Masons of course believe it must be so ) Well , tho learned jurist , Bro . Paton , laid down the following law : — "A Grand Lodge thus formed , by the union of not loss than threo
Lodges in a convention , at once assumes all tho prerogatives of a Grand Lodge , and acquires exclusive Masonio jurisdiction in the territory , [ tho italicising is theirs ] aud noLodge can continue to e . rist , or be subsequently established , e . ecept under Us authority , within the said territory . "
The truth , however is , Bro . Paton copied that law ( and , indeed , aa well tho rest of his laws ) from Dr . Mackcy ' s book of Masonio Jurisprudence . And Dr . Mackoy got that law from hearsay—a kind of au unwritten law . That law has certainly never been enacted by either of the three Grand Lodges in Great Britain and Ireland ; and as far as I know , by no Grand Lodge in tho world ; it is merely an
American notion , and no ono knows who originated it . In 1870 Bro . W . S . Gardner , G . M . of Massachusetts , in order to invalidate the Prince Hall Grand Lodgo ( coloured G . L . ) in Boston , cited the alleged Three Lodge Law , and hence , as the Princo Hall G . L . was organised by only one Lodge , he therefore pronounced it , spurious , clandestine , illegitimate , & c . In my review of Bro . Gardner ' s address , I called
his attention to tho fact that the G . L . of York was formed by one Lodge , that of New Hampshire was formed by two Lodges , that of Rhode Island was also formed by two Lodges . Tho G . L . of Massachusetts in 1777 was formed by no Lodge at all , a solitary Master of a dormant Lodge was the only Lodgo officer then present , and I have since then ascertained that previous to the union of tho Masons
of English origin with those of Scotch origin , several brethren belonging to tho former met in convention , dubbed each other Right Worshipfuls and Most Worshipfuls , declared themselves an inde . pendent Grand Lodge , and then tho farco was performed of tho two Grand Masters acknowledging each other ' s legality , then thoy both resigned , and then one of them Avas elected . But what I beg to call
particular attention to is , thafc tho new G . L . of 1792 , which the older G . L . acknowledged as legal and orthodox , was also organised and perfected Avithout tho presence of Lodge Officers . If then a G . L . could bo legally created fifteen years after another was established , and if Grand Lodges could then bo formed by less than threo Lodges , and by no Lodges at all , why cannot the samo procedure be held
legal and orthodox now ? On tho other hand , " exclusive Masonic jurisdiction" may be enacted as a local law , but it cannot be called a fundamental Masonic law ; for instance , for about sixty years two Grand Lodges exercised co-ordinate jurisdiction in England ; and in 1813 each Grand Lodge acknowledged and confessed that the other Grand Lodgo was just as
legal and orthodox during thoso sixty years as it was itself —( just the same as tbe two Grand Lodges in Massachusetts did in 1792 ) . In Germany there are now eight Grand Lodges exercising co-ordinate jurisdiction , and in Franco there are two such Grand Bodies . When German or French brethren travel abroad , and wish to visit Lodges , no Lodgo would refuse them admission , because they belong to this
or to that G . L . The G . L . of Scotland before 1813 used to admit both ancients and moderns into its Lodges , and , Avhen tho split took place near thirty years ago in the G . L . of New York , both parties sent delegates to tho G . L . of England to plead their respective claims . The G . L . of England , after hearing what each had to say , decided not to interfere , but it extended the hand of good fellowship to both
parties alike . Either of the New York parties were welcomed in English Lodges , and therein the G . L . of England exercised good sound common sense , and I hope and trust that when the American Coloured Mason question shall be brought to the notice of the G . L , of England , that it will then exercise the same common sense towards tho members of the American Coloured Lodges as it did towards tho
New York brethren above referred to . Again , thero was an English Provincial Grand Lodge in Frankforton-the-Maine , as early as 1761 . ( See " Findel's History , " pp 247 and 307 ) . In 1783 tho Eclectic Union G . L . was formed , which is still in existence . In 1814 , tbe brethren belonging to a Lodge at Frankfort , holding its charter from the G . O . of Franco , were ordered by tho
Government to sever their connection with tho French G . O . The Christian members of the said Lodge got a charter in Germany , but the Jewish members of tho same Lodge could get no charter from any German G . L . In this dilemma the Jewish Masons applied to the Duke of Sussex , G . M . of England , who granted them the desired charter . Thereupon , says Bro . Findel , p 514 : —
" The English Provincial G . L . at Frankfort appealed to the treaty concluded with London , by virtue of which Lodges in her district could only be erected by her and with her consent , and she therefore protested against the conduct of tho mother G . L . The latter , however , remained firm to her purpose . " We see , then , that even iu Masonry " There is no rule Avithout an
exception . " Tho fact is , laws were made for Masonry , but Masonry was not made for laws , and hence , when Masonic laAvs are based npon justice , the Craft at large will respect them , but if they are based upon local prejudices , the Craft Avill treat them with contempt . Guided by that principle , the G . O . of France , the United Grand Lodges of Germany , besides other Grand Lodges , have , in spite of the
protests of American Grand Lodges , acknowledged somo of our American coloured Grand Lodges . To make , therefore , Masonic laws universally respected , thoso laws should be based upon common senso upon just principles—or , in other words , thoso laws must accord Avith the golden rule , " Do unto others as you wish others to do unto yon . " Agreeably to tho above rules , I respectfully advise Grand Lodges to acknowledge tho new Grand Lodgo of Now South Wales . But ,
at the same time , it must be given to understand that the will and pleasure of the remaining thirty-eight Lodges must be respected by all parties . The said Lodges have done nothing to forfeit their rights , and there is no reason ( except of so-called learned jurists ) why they shonld be dragooned to obey the dictum of the 12 Lodge Grand Lodge . There has been no exclusive Masonic jurisdiction in N . S . W . hitherto j there is no exclusive jurisdiction there now , and there can