Grand Representatives.

GRAND REPRESENTATIVES

The question ha' ** , no doubt , been often asked—and we venture to think that considerable difficulty must occasionally have been experienced in answering * it—o ! what use is it to appoint brethren as Grand Representatives at other Grand Lodges which are on terms of amity with us , when the position is merely ornamental , and the duties pertaining to it are haidly

capable of b ^ ing determined by any quantity known or unknown ? We believe wc are correct in stating that the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts has never adopted the practice of ex-changing representatives with other Grand Lodges , while thc Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania , though it has done so in the past , is on the eve of discontinuing it , and will henceforth neither

accredit representatives to other Grand Lodges nor have any representatives of foreign Grand Lodges accredited to it . These facts must materially increase the difficulty of furnishing an answer to the query we have propounded—of what use are Grand Representatives ? If , it will be argued , the Grand Lodges of Pennsylvania and Massachusetts are able to dispense with

the fraternal exchange of representatives , and at the same time to remain on terms of the friendliest intercourse with other Grand Lodges , why cannot other Grand Lodges go and do likewise ? The illumination we derive from our own Book of Constitutions on the subject of Grand Representatives is meagre in the extreme , while , as regards their use

and functions , it is absolutely nil . Article 8 provides that " the Grand Master may , by warrant , appoint any brother to represent him in a sister Grand Lodge , and may constitute him and also any brother regularly deputed from a sister Grand Lodge , a member of the Grand Lodge of England , with such rank as the Grand Master may

deem appropriate . " This is all we learn from our code of Masonic law on the subject of representatives , there being not a word said either in this Article 8 or elsewhere that wc have been able to discover , that might assist us in forming any idea as to the precise character of their duties and the manner in which they are expected to perform them . And yet , though the

ollice U obviously ornamental , we should very greatly regret if steps were ever taken to abolish it . There is such an old-world sense of courtesy about it . Doubtless the idea of exchanging representatives with sister Grand Lodges had ils origin in the practice existing in the political world by which States that were on friendly terms with each other exchanged representatives

in the persons of Ambassadors or Ministers Plenipotentiary . But in the political world diplomacy is charged with the performance of duties which are both difficult and delicate . The interests , political or commercial , even of friendly States , are oftentimes conflicting , and when this happens to be thc tasr , it devolves on the Ambassador or Minister to use all his efforts to

prevent the interests of the country he represents from being overborne by that to which he is accredited . Hence the importance of having none but men of the very highest character and capacity in the dip lomatic service , who must moreover be what is known as persona ? grata ; at the courts they are accredited lo . But though the idea of exchanging representatives in

Masonry may have originated as we have stated , it has nevertheless been carried out in a different manner . The British Ambassador in Paris is a British subject selected by the sovereign he represents , and wfo 5 e interests he is appointed to safeguard , from the members of the British diplomatic service , while the French Ambassador

m London is a Frenchman similarly selected by the French President , and for the same purpose . But in Masonry , the representative of the Grand Lodge of England at—let us say—the Grand Lodge of Canada is an eminent Canadian Mason , while the representative of the Grand Lodgeof Canada at our Grand Lodge is an eminent English Mason .

But though , on the face of it , the appointment of a Canadian brother to look after English Masonic interests in Canada , and of an English brother lo look after Canadian interests in England , may savour somewhat of an

absurdity , the plan has hitherto be found to work well . On this point , Bro . DRUMMOND , of Maine , though he is of the same opinion as Bro . VAUX , of Pennsylvania , that "the Grand Representative System , at present existing , ought to be abolished" is by no means an

unimportant witness , and he remarks , " Their mission " —that is the mission of Grand Lodge Rcpresentatatives— " is to cultivate closer fraternal relations without interfering with business relations . We think they serve a

fi * ood purpose in resisting the present tendency towards changing Masonry fro m a brotherhood to a number of organisations professing the same Princi ples , but differing in methods , polity , and laws . " Considering that h " holds this opinion , it is strange that Bro . D RUMMOND should arrive Ultimatel y at the conclusion that " the system as now administered " is of

Grand Representatives.

" little value , ' and may , with advantage , be abolished . " Representatives of Grand Lodges " may not , as he says , be " the channel of correspondence " between such Grand Lodges , yet , if in spite of their being chielty ornamental , they have been able to " cultivate" to good purpose " closer fraternal relations" between the bodies they represent and those they are

accredited to , it appears to be in every way desirable that the system should be maintained and even extended still further , so that as many as possible of existing Masonic Grand Lodges and Grand Orients may be brought into those " closer fraternal relations " which , in Bro . DRUMMOND' . S opinion , it is the " mission " of Grand Representatives to cultivate .

Supreme Grand Chapter.

SUPREME GRAND CHAPTER

The Qua terly Convocation of Supreme Grand Chapter of Royal Arch Masons of England was held on Wednesday evening at PVeemasons' Hall . Comp . Col . R . Townley Caldwell , M . A ., Grand Superintendent of Cambridge , occupied the chair of M . E . G . Z . ; Comp . Lieut .-General C . W .

Randolph , Grand Superintendent of Sussex , that of G . H . ; and Coirip . the Rev . J . Studholme Brownrigg , Grand Superintendent of Bucks , the chair of G . J . Comps . E . Letchworth , Grand Scribe E ., and R . Loveland Loveland , as Grand Scribe N ., filled their respective chairs and the other companions present were :

Comps . Robert Grey , President Committee of General Purposes ; L . G . Gordon Robbins , Deputy G . Reg * . ; Clement Godson , G . S . B . ; P . H . Waterlow , Asst . G . S . B . j S . G . Kirchhoffer , ist G . Std . Br .-, H . Mackintosh , 3 rd G . Std . Br . ; H . Ward , 6 th G . Std . Br . j Frank Richardson , G . D . C . ; Alfred C . Spaull , Dep . G . D . C ; R . Willoughby , A . G . D . C ; John Read , G . Org . ; C A . Cottebrune , 2 nd A G . D . C . ; S . Vallentine , S . V . Abrahams , Alfred A . Pendlebury , A . G . S . E . ;

Peter de L . Long , J . S . Montaine , George Everett , P . G . Treas . ; Sir Bruce M Seton , Alfred Spencer , Eugene Monteuuis , Henry Garrod , Baron de Ferrieres , R Joynes , Emmerson , Rev . C . W . Spencer Stanhope , J . J . Collins , H . Bue , George J McKay , R . C . Sudlow , Charles Belton , Sir George D . Harris , Major-General J Crossland Hay , Charles Frederick Hogard , P . G . Std . Br . ; Fred . Mead , W . P Brown , Rudolph G . Glover , Richard Eve , P . G . Treas . j T . Hastings Miller , j . H

Matthews , James Glaisher , Herbert | . Adams , Frederick West , W . M . Bywater , Percival A . Nairne , Ralph Glutton , C . H . Baylis , G- H . Hopkinson , R . Clowes , F . H . Goldney , H . J . Strong , M . D . Henry . J . T . Dumas , H . Sadler , G . Janitor ; C . H . Phillips , P . Z . 1 S 6 ; C . Morton Challender , P . Z . 1004 ; H . Massey , P . Z . 619 and 192 S ; W . O . Taylor , H . 913 ; C N . Mclntyre North , M . E . Z , 1275 ; Walter Davies , P . Z . 1901 ; J . Wilson , P . Z . 1365 ; H . Maunder Williams , P . Z . 1326 ,- W . A . Scurrah , M . E . Z . 2271 ; Arthur Scurrah , M . E . Z . 2048 ; William

Shurmur , M . E . Z . 2374 ; John Hattersley , M . E . Z . 177 ; J . G . Milbourn , M . E . Z , 879 ; John D . Connell , H . 1851 ; Williim Dodd , P . Z . 1 194 ; E . J . Norris , M . E . Z . 913 ; C . J . Cenphain , J . 913 ; Neville Green , P . Z . 1524 ; Arthur Tetts , P . Z , 1624 ; G . Schadler , M . E . Z . 65 ; Robert A . Gowan , H . 2039 ; Edwin W . Lewcock , M . E . Z . 72 ; Thomas Minstrell , P . Z . 1928 ; T . E . Edmonds , P . Z . 1507 ; Thomas W . Richirdson , M . E . Z . 2029 and 1929 ; C . H . Canning , P . Z . 1472 ; W . T . H . Mayer , M . E . Z . 1693 ; and Charles Wilson , M . E . Z . 1329 .

After the opening of Grand Chapter , and the reading and confirmation of the minutes of convocation of August 2 nd , the report of the Committee of General Purposes , which appeared in our last issue , was taken as read , and then ordered to be received and entered on the minutes . The charter for the Chertsey Abbey Chapter was unanimously granted , on the motion of Comp . ROBERT GREY , seconded by Comp . FRANK . RICHARDSON .

Comp . RICHARD EVE , P . G . T ., with reference to the recommendation as to the St . Maughold Chapter , said he did not know whether it was n ecessary that a consideration of this petition should be deferred . He thought perhaps it might inconvenience several companions . Why not strike out the names of those petitioners who were not registered ? Out of the 23 names there would still be left plenty when the 10 wcre not counted . He begged to move as an amendment that those who were not registered as members of

the Royal Arch should be struck out , and that the petition of those who were registered be recommended to be granted . Comp . C . MORTON CHALLENDER , P . Z . 1004 , said he was exceedingly sorry that those 10 who were not registered should have signed the petition ; but he seconded the amendment . The amendment was put and lost , and the original motion was carried , A charter of confirmation was granted to the Port Natal Chapter .

With regard to the Marlborough Chapter , Woodstock , Comp . ROUTGREY said that the Committee had very seriously considered thc memorial , and they came to the conclusion that the request contained in it should not be entertained , as it was calculated to establish a very inconvenient precedent indeed , and which might lead to the establishment of removable lodges , which would not be good in Masonry . Following the rule of Grand Lodge , they recommended Grand Chapter not to entertain the memorial . Comp . F RANK RICHARDSON seconded the motion . He thought it would be a very bad precedent to have any moveable lodges or chapters .