The Lodge Of Research.*

part different . At the January lodge , Bro . R . PRATT , M . D ., concluded his paper on " The Grand Lodges of England , " the attention of the author being directed chiefly to the Grand Lodge of all England at York and its daughter Grand Lodge ,

the Grand Lodge of England South of the Trent . " The Life and CareeroftheRev . W ILLIAM DODD , LL . D ., GrandChaplain , 1775-6 , " is the subject Bro . L . STAINES ' S paper at the meeting on the 26 th March , and the author is to be congratulated , both on the

information he has accumulated respecting this unfortunate clergyman , the methodical way in which he has arranged his material , and the good taste lie lias shown in dealing with a career which does not ordinarily commend itself to the notice of brethren .

At the May meeting Bro . Tl-IORP , who seems to have very carefully studied his subject , read a paper on " The Jewels of the Worshipful Master and the Past Masters . " So exhaustively , and at the same time so correctly , docs he seem to have treated

the matter that we imagine there will be little , if any , room for addition or amendment on the part of any brother who may elect to follow him in this field of research . We are further indebted to Bro . TllORP for a transcript of "The ' JOHN

STRACHAN MS . ' of the ' Old Charges , ' A . D . I 700 circa , " to which is prefixed a brief but sufficient introduction from the pen of Bro . G . W . BAIN . In addition to the papers we have mentioned are records of discussions on subjects of general

interest , such as " Lessons from the Sequence of the Degrees , " The Qualifications for Masonry , Operative and Speculative , " and " The Privileges of a Lewis and the reasons for them , " which were severally initiated by Bros . F . M . BILLSON , THORP ,

and BlLLSON , and add materially to the value of the issue . We thank Bro . TllORP for his courtesy in enabling us to review these " Transactions , " and trust we may have still further opportunities of drawing attention to the very useful work which is being done

by this small edition of the older and more generally-known Quatuor Coronati Lodge ; nor must we fail to congratulate Bro . TllORP on the care and accuracy he has exhibited in the discharge of his editorial duties ; in these respects the issue for 1899—1900 leaves nothing to be desired .

Masonic Jurisprudence.

MASONIC JURISPRUDENCE .

[ COMMUNICATED . ] We have alluded to the unsatisfactory wording of Article 210 , especially the phrase " sufficient cause . " Seeing what a wide and indefinite area is covered by this expression it is

satisfactory lo relied thai , after all , exclusion is but a local penalty , and the excluded brother is not , on that account , debarred from seeking admission to another lodge , nor does his exclusion from one lodge affect his membership of others which he may beloinr to at the same time .

As to what constitutes" sufficient cause , " we can only be guided by actual decisions . The question which has been frequently asked , is where Masonic relationship between brethren begins and ends . On one point , the charge of tin ; First Degree lays down satisfaclorv limitations . Political and religious differences

are nol to be counted at all , and the brother who brings such questions into lodge ai . d thereby excites undeniable feelings of partisanship , is guilty of conduct , in the writer ' s opinion , which merits exclusion . II in the heat of a political contest brother

A finds it impossible to be on amicable terms with brother 15 of opjiosite political complexion , it is belter , says our rilual , that one or both ol them should retire from lodge or Slav away altogether , rather than that the harmony of the meeting should be disturbed .

Breach of obligation would occur to the reader as constituting very ' sufficient reason " for exclusion . Now , the obligations—three in number—are very far reaching . Primarily the } ' refer to ( lie secrecy of the Institution , and it is matter for sincere gratification that violation of the S . O . is

practically unheard ol 111 this respect . 1 he obligation in the Third Degree practically covers the whole duly to our neighbour as laid down in the Church catechism--with the important difference that " our neighbour" is to be translated " a brother Mason . "

A case decided by Grand Lodge in March , iSSS , may be quoted in illustration . A certain brother was expelled by the District Grand Lodge of Canterbury , X . Z ., for what was described as " tin-Masonic conduct . " This turned out to be a breach of the Seventh Commandment . He appealed , and in moving that the appeal be entertained , Bro . Philbrick said—

Masonic Jurisprudence.

" . . . It cannot be too carefully borne in mind that Masonry is an institution which exists for Masonic purposes , and that we are not general censores monun , and that unless a Masonic offence has been committed we have not to take cognizance of

matters which lie outside the province of Masonry . " The inference is that in matters like this the terms of the obligation can only be supposed to hold when a brother Mason

is prejudiced by the alleged wrong doing . It may be law , but then there is a celebrated opinion on record about the law , laid down by Mr . Bumble , which in this particular case seems to be justified . V

The offence alluded to is one which in this country does not engage the attention of a criminal court . In India and New Zealand it may , and often does , provided the offender does not quickly " agree with his adversary , " in other words , compound . Now , if the offender were convicted and punished by a criminal

court , the record of his conviction would be quite sufficient to ensure his expulsion . A conviction for felony , at all events , has on several occasions had this result . With regard to this

particular offence then , the brother ' s expulsion , or otherwise , appears to depend upon his ability to stave off a prosecution by making a composition . It may be remarked that in India the distinction between felony and misdemeanour does not exist .

However , brethren are not entirely hel pless , even where the majesty of the law seems to be inoperative . In the June following the disposal of this appeal Bro . Philbrick made the following qualifying statement : " ft has been supposed that the advice I gave to Grand

Lodge on that appeal and the consequent action of Grand Lodge had in some way put it out of the powers or right of a lodge to exclude one of its members for what , according to an article of the Constitutions , is called ' sufficient cause' I desire

to guard myself against this misapprehension , and prevent that case . . . from being thought a case that had anything to do with the jurisdiction of the

lodges to exclude one of its members . . . there was nothing in the decision Grand Lodge arrived at in that particular case which precluded his lodge from excluding that brother . "

As a matter of fact lie was excluded . . . Bro . Portal , P . G . Chap ., added to this clear expression of opinion by saying that " conduct which involves a scandal to the Order justifies a lodge in excluding him . "

In March , 1 S < > 4 , (/ rand Lodge re-mstated a brother who had been excluded under the following circumstances : Two members of the lodge had had monetary dealings which resulted in one of them bringing a criminal action against the other , which resulted in a conviction for misdemeanour . The natural result should

have been the exclusion of the offender ; but apparently the sympathies of the lodge were with him , and he actually brought his accuser before the lodge on a charge of violating his obligation— " not to hurt him by word or deed " Bringing

a criminal action against him he held was an injury which came under this description , and he further went on to say that the dispute should have been brought before the lodge instead of a profane court !

Astonishing to say , the lodge endorsed all this , and excluded the brother for " nn-Masonic conduct . "

The decision of Grand Lodge was undoubtedly in accordance both with law and common sense . In September , 1 S 92 , Grand Lodge confirmed an exclusion under the following circumstances : A brother of a Jersey lodge got into distressed circumstances , and gave out that he was going

to England to seek work . The members of the lodge said if he did they would voluntarily raise ; a fund for the support of hi * wife and children during his absence . On the eve of his proposed departure this fund was handed over to him ( rather imprudently , in the writer ' s opinion ) , and the brother then

stayed where he was , and never left the island . The brethren thought they had not been rightly dealt with , and , after the usual formalities , they excluded him . Grand Lodge upheld it . I ' - only interest in this cast ; was that here was a brother dealt wit " penally for misappropriation of funds , when he had never been

legally convicted of such offence . However , Grand Lodge * decision was the common sense one . We shall now bring our discussion of the " penal code' l ° a close with a few words on the subject of erasure an '

expulsion . Erasure is not always in the nature of a penalty . It occurs for instance , when lodges " secede , " and transfer their allegia , ice to a foreign jurisdiction . Last December , for instance , no less than a score of lodg eS in New Zealand were formally erased by a vote of Grand Lodg ci