Contents.

CONTENTS .

L EADERS— _ _ PAGE . The Doctrine of Exclusive Jurisdiction 599 The District of Natal 600 The Masters' and Wardens ' Association , Victoria ... 600 Province of West Yorkshire 601 The Charges of Biitish * Freemasons 601 Consecration of the Lewisham Lodge , No . 2579 602 Consecration of the St . Aldhelm's

Lodge , No . 2559 C 02 Provincial Grand Lodge of West Yorkshire ... 603 Provincial Grand Mark Lodge of Gloucestershire' and Herefordshire ... 605 Supreme Grand Chapter of England ( Agenda ) 605

PAGE . Secret Monitor 605 Masonic Notes 607 CORRESPONDENCELodge of Friendship , No . 44 ... 60 S A Disclaimer CoS Our Brothers' Bed 60 S Knights Templar 60 S Provincial Grand Chapter cf

Northumberland ... 609 Provincial Grand Mark Lodge of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight 6 rg Craft Masonry r -o _ Royal Arch fill Mark Masonry ... 612 Royal A rk Mariners 612 Lodges and Chapters of Instruction ... 612 Masonic and General Tidings ... 614 Lodge Meetings for Next Week ... iii .

The Doctrine Of Exclusive Jurisdiction.

THE DOCTRINE OF EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION .

We regret exceedingly that we should have missed thc opportunity of seeing the Editor of our respected contemporary , the Canadian Craftsman , on the occasion of his recent visit to the old country and showing him those courtesies which a

visiting brother is entitled to , and which it is a pleasure and a privilege as well as a duty on the part of the brother visited to show . We ; should gladly have discussed with him , so far as time permitted , questions of general interest—all and

singularaffecting the welfare of the Fraternity . Especially should we have been prepared to humour . him to the top of his bent in considering the vexed question of Exclusive Masonic Jurisdiction , which has formed the subject of more than one article both in

his and our columns . We do not imagine we should have got much further than we arc now in establishing a common basis of agreement in respect of this doctrine , not because we are less open to correction than other people , but because the doctrine is

essentially modern and almost exclusivel y American . There has always been , so far as we know , some general principle governing the interjurisdictional relations of Grand Lodges with each other , and as Bro . CHETWODE CRAWLEY , in his " Notes on Irish

Freemasonry" No . II ., in Volume VIII ., Part 2 , "Ars Quatuor Coronatorum , " points out , " at the present time almost every Grand Lodge in the world has given its implicit or explicit adherence to some modification of the principle which may thus claim to

that extent , and no more , the force of an Established Usage , though it can never be classed as an Ancient Landmark . " But tlie extent to which this principle was , and outside Freemasonry in the United States and British North America still is , limited ,

is shown in the passage he quotes from an anonymous pamphlet published in London in 1765 , and entitled , " A Defence of I ' ree-Masonry as Practised in the Regular Lodges , Both Foreign ¦ 'ind Domestic , under the Constitution of the English Grand

Master " : — "But the English Masons should bc cautious with whom they converse , as there are many irregular Masons , i . e ., modern Lodges under the title of Ancient or York ,. w \\ o some tune ago pretended to be constituted or authorised by thc Grand

• Master of Ireland , who ( bye-the-bye ) , I am credibly informed , refused to countenance them , as it would bc highly absurd for one Grand Master to constitute Lodges in the Territories of ' 'mother . " The same writer in the same article quotes a case

"oted in thc minutes of the Grand Lodge of Ireland in 1 796 , in which sundry brethren of the " Loyal Inverness Fenciblcs " applied for a warrant of the said Grand Lodge ancl were referred '' yittotheirown Grand Lodge in Edinburgh ; and though we cannot

, ly our hands for thc moment upon the reference , we have read 01 a similar case in which certain Scottish brethren , residing in '• oiidon , applied to thc Grand Lodge of Scotland for a warrant , and were referred to the Grand Lodge in London . This

The Doctrine Of Exclusive Jurisdiction.

principle of the territorial jurisdiction of Grand Lodge was , indeed , as Bro . SPETH points out in a Note on Bro . CRAWLEY ' S Article , established , so far as the Grand Lodge of England was concerned , in 1770 , when "in acknowledging the new Grand

Lodge of the Netherlands , it agreed to refrain in future from establishing any new lodges in that country , but it explicitly insisted upon the right of such lodges of its Constitution in Holland as chose to adhere to their English jurisdiction being

allowed to do so undisturbed . " The principle thus laid down in 1770 has been consistently followed by the Grand Lodge of England ever since , and as far as we know by the Grand Lodges of Ireland and Scotland , which have concurrent jurisdiction with

it in those parts of the British Empire in which there are not recognised local Grand Lodges . In the United States of North America , each State has its Grand Lodge , whose territorial limits are coincident with those of the State . In British North

America—exclusive of Newfoundland , which remains under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodges of the United Kingdom—there are seven separate and independent Grand Lodges , each with its territorial limits clearly enough defined , but in Nova Scotia there

is one lodge , and in the Province of Quebec three lodges , which have elected to remain in their old allegiance to the Grand Lodge of England . Turning our attention to the Craft at the Antipodes ,

we find one lodge in New South Wales and one in Victoria still remaining in allegiance to the Grand Lodge of England , and in South Australia one which retains its connection wilh the Grand

Lodge of Ireland ; while as showing that we adopt towards other Masonic powers the principle we have laid down for ourselves , there is in Cape Colony and adjoining territories a considerable

body of Dutch lodges under the administration of a Deputy Grand Master , notwithstanding that Cape Colony has been British territory ever since the early years of the present century .

Up to this point we imagine that the editor of thc Canadian Craftsman and ourselves would have been in perfect accord ; indeed , we do not see that it is possible for exception to be taken to what we have said thus far , seeing that we have confined

ourselves wholly to statements of fact which are incontrovertible . The divergence , however , would begin from this point . Our contemporary would lay it down as a principle—or as he has before designated it , a Landmark—that the moment a local

Grand Lodge is established , all lodges situated within thc territorial jurisdiction of such Grand Lodge must acknowledge its sovereignty and enrol themselves under its banner under penalty of being declared irregular or clandestine . As we

understand it , the American doctrine of Exclusive Jurisdiction lays it down that when a local Grand Lodge has once been set up by a majority of the lodges located within a certain territory , the lodges constituting the minority , though deriving their warrants from

the identical Grand Lodge or Grand Lodges which set up the majority / cease , ipso facto , to have any will of their own . They are no longer free agents , nor have they the right to say—We derive our existence from the Grand Lodge of England , Ireland ,

or Scotland , as the case may bc , we have flourished under her banner , we desire no change , much less do we wish for a severance of the connection with our parent Grand Lodges . You claim the right to secede and set up your

own Grand Lodge , and we trust you may have before you along and prosperous future ; but wc claim , with equal right , to remain as we are and as we have been from the very outset of our

existence . I hc laws of the Grand Lodge or Lodges which warranted us sanction our adoption of this course , nor will those bodies accord you recognition as a supreme authority unless you allow us that freedom of action which you arc exercising for