Contents.

CONTENTS .

LEADERS" No Disloyalty" ... - - ¦•• ••• ' 3 Ars Quatuor Coronatorum ... . '" . , : ' . '" ' 4 New Year's Entertainment at the Royal Masonic Benevolent Institution ... 15 New Year ' s Entertainment at the Girls' School ... ... ... 16 Provincial Grand Lodge of Nottinghamshire ... ... ... ... 16

Provincial Grand Chapter of Gloucestershire ... ... ... ... 17 Masonic Ball at Brighton ... ••¦ ••• - 17 Masonic Treat to the Aged — >•• — — ' 7 Royal Masonic Insti ' . ution for Girls ... ... ... ... 17 Masonic Notes ... -. — ••• — " 9 Correspondence ... ... — ••¦ ••• •¦• 20

Masonic Hall at Penzance ... — ••• ••• 21 St . John ' s Card ... ... - - - 21 Craft Masonry ... ••• ••• ••• ••• 21 Mark Masonry — ... ¦•• — ••• — 23 Lodges and Chapters of Instruction ... ... ... ... 23 Masonic and General Tidings ... ... ... ... ... 24

"No Disloyalty."

"NO DISLOYALTY ."

The New Zealand Craftsman for October last contains a well-written article under the above heading , in which it states , not as a matter of opinion , but as a matter of fact , that " one of

the greatest difficulties encountered by those who sought to establish local government in this Colony by the formation of a Grand Lodge was the imputation to which they were freely subjected of their action being disloyal to the parent Constitutions .

Those who joined in and supported the Grand Lodge movement were not only characterised as disloyal and held up to public reprobation as traitors , but they were also accused of violating the most sacred obligations in proposing to transfer their

allegiance . " It considers—what is indeed most probable—that " a great number of brethren and many lodges were thus deterred from throwing in their lot with the new movement , " and that " even to this day many lodges and brethren hold aloof from and

look askance at the Grand Lodge of New Zealand under the entirely mistaken impression that loyalty to their parent Grand Lodge requires that they should do so . They would willingly support the National Grand Lodge if they thought they could do

so consistently with their duty to their mother Grand Lodge . " Under these circumstances our contemporary calls attention to certain remarks made in United Grand Lodge by Bro . the Earl of MOUNT EDGCUMBE , Deputy G . M ., and Bro . the Earl of

JERSEY , Past G . M . of New South Wales , Prov . G . M . of Oxfordshire . The former is quoted as having pointed out that " the demand for free existence" was "the natural result of healthy development , " and that that demand involved " no breach of

allegiance or rebellion and should not be regarded with jealousy . " The latter is said "tohave emphasised" the same points previously , when he objected to the members of a lodge in New South Wales which had not transferred its allegiance " being referred

to as'loyal , 'to distinguish them from the brethren who owed fealty to thc Grand Lodge of New South Wales . " We have no intention of calling in question the accuracy of our

contemporary's statements . There is no doubt that " disloyalt y " is , as it describes it , a " nasty" word , nor are we prepared to affirm jiat it may not have exercised on many brethren and lodges the deterrent effect ascribed to it . No one in his senses would

Venture to assert that the brethren in South Australia , New South Wales , Victoria , and Tasmania , in setting up Grand Lodges of heir own , ever entertained a thought of acting " disloyally" to Aeir parent Grand Lodges . What they then did was , as Bro .

Lord MOUNT EDGCUMBE very appropriately expressed it , nothing more than " the natural outcome of the development of Masonic constitutional principles . " The mistake made by the

promoters of the unrecognised Grand Lodge of New Zealanda mistake which has been followed by most deplorable results to the Craft in the Colony—was that they did not exercise that patience

"No Disloyalty."

and circumspection which are required of all who undertake to establish a new in place of an existing organisation , be it political , commercial , social , or Masonic . The complaint against the old system of concurrent jurisdiction in the Colony was that , so long

as it was permitted to remain , so long there existed thc danger that frequent and even serious dissensions were possible and by no means improbable ; and even our New Zealand contemporary will hardly venture to affirm that the erection of a fourth

Constitution in addition to the three previously existing was the only or even the likeliest way of determining the evil . We believe we are correct in saying that if a substantial majority of lodges in the Colony had signified their adhesion to thc movement for

establishing a Grand Lodge of New Zealand , the United Grand Lodge of England would have recognised it on the usual conditions with the same readiness and pleasure as it had exhibited only a short time previously in recognising the other Grand

Lodges at the Antipodes . When , however , the critical moment arrived , it was found that only 32 lodges out of some 150 were committed to the movement , and our Grand Lodge very properly withheld recognition , not from any idea that the brethren in New Zealand who desired a Constitution and Grand Loch > e of their

own were " disloyal , " but because the new movement had succeeded in enlisting thc support of so small a proportion of the lodges . There is nothing inconsistent with sound policy

or the spirit of Masonic Charity , when a Grand Lodge , while fully and most cordiall y recognising that " the demand for free existence" is , as our ' Deputy Grand Master has so justly expressed it , " a necessity , and the material outcome of the

development of Masonic constitutional principles , " withholds recognition from a Grand Lodge , the creation of which , under the circumstances we have described , must in the very nature of things , have the effect—as , indeed , wc know it has had the

effect—of only making confusion still " worse confounded . " But as we pointed out in the article which appeared in our columns a short while since , the question now is , not as to what happened early in 1889 ; not whether the promoters of the

unrecognised Grand Lodge of New Zealand exhibited a lack of patience and circumspection and sound judgment in determining on the erection of that body coute que coute ; not whether the deplorable consequences which have followed that act of the

said promoters is due to their incaution and precipitate conduct or to some other cause or causes ; not whether our Grand Lodge was or was not justified in thc course it adopted towards the so-called Grand Lodge at thc outset and has

maintained towards it ever since ; but by what means and at how early a date such a means may be found as will determine , once and for ever , the inharmonious relations presently existing among the several Masonic Constitutions now existing

in the colony of New Zealand . Why cannot steps be taken , and at once , to heal the wounds from which—no matter what the vis et origo mail—the Craft in that Colony is undoubtedly suffering ? Why , as we suggested in our recent article , cannot a

convention be held—unofficially , if that is preferred or is held to be necessary—of representative brethren of sound judgment and large experience , selected from the four sections of thc Craft now concurrently existing in the Colony ? Why , in face of the historic fact that the "Ancient" and "Modern" Societies of

English Masons , after more than 60 years of open and undisguised , and , at times , most violent , antagonism , did come together in 1 S 13 , and , after arranging terms mutually

honourable , did re-form themselves into one united and harmonious whole—why , in the face of this , we ask , should it be impossible for our brethren of the English , Irish , Scotch , and New Zealand