-
Articles/Ads
Article ARTICLE 219 OF THE BOOK OF CONSTITUTIONS. Page 1 of 2 Article ARTICLE 219 OF THE BOOK OF CONSTITUTIONS. Page 1 of 2 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Article 219 Of The Book Of Constitutions.
ARTICLE 219 OF THE BOOK OF CONSTITUTIONS .
Many correspondents besides "Lex Scripta" have been inquiring where , in our reports of the proceedings of United Grand Lodge , will be found the Grand Registrar ' s ruling concerning Article 219 of the Book of Constitutions , to which we had occasion to refer in our article of a few weeks since on the
" Surrender of Warrants . The decision , however , though no doubt it is filed in the archives of Grand Lodge , was not contained in the report of any meeting of that body that we are aware of , but will be found in a letter addressed by our Grand Secretary to the District Grand Secretary of the District
Grand Lodge of Wellington , North Island ( N . Z . ) , on the 4 th November last , in reply to one addressed to him by the latter , on the 14 th June previous . It was published in the New Zealand Craftsman of the ist February of the current year , and it was the ruling contained in this letter to which we took exception in
the article referred to . From this important communication we gather that the District Grand Secretary of Wellington ( N . Z . ) , having requested the opinion of our Grand Lodge authorities on "the subject of the majority of a lodge having the power to transfer it to the jurisdiction of a local Grand Lodge , " our
Grand Secretary delayed sending a reply until he had had " the opportunity of conferring on the point with the Grand Registrar , " and having so conferred , that he then replied as follows : " The question was raised during the formation recently of the various Australian Grand Lodges , and it was then officially decided that
it was a case where the majority of the members had a right to decide the matter on behalf of their lodge , and that the rule contained in Article 219 , Book of Constitutions , which allows three members to hold the warrant , did not apply , as the majority were not ' retiring' from the lodge , but were merely transferring
its allegiance to another Masonic power . And the Grand Registrar considers that this ruling should apply to the case of the New Zealand lodges . I must mention that it was always ruled in the Australian cases that such a question cannot be discussed in open lodge . "
W'hen we wrote our article on the " Surrender of Warrants " our remarks were based on the recollection of what we had read in the New Zealand Craftsman of February i , 1890 . We have , however , since read the letter in question again most carefully , and though we are always most ready to defer to the opinion of
so enlightened a legal authority—especially in a strictly legal question of this kind—as the Grand Registrar , we are more convinced than ever that his decision cannot be justified by anything contained in Article 219 itself or in any other Article in our Book of Constitutions . We have already pointed out that the
said Article lays it down clearly , without any reservation whatsoever of any kind or in favour of any particular class of cases , that " Should the majority of any lodge determine to retire from it , the power of assembling remains with the rest of the members , but should the number of members remaining at any
time be less than three the warrant becomes extinct . " But , the Grand Registrar is represented to have argued , it was decided when " the various Australian Grand Lodges were being formed that this law did not apply , seeing that the majority were not " retiring" from the lodge , but merely transferring its allegiance
to another Masonic body . To this we rejoin that ( 1 ) there is nothing in the wording of the Article itself to indicate that the word " retire " possesses , or is intended to possess , the particular meaning assigned to it by the Grand Registrar in this or any other class of classes , and ( 2 ) it is not in the power of a majority
of the members of a lodge to " merely transfer" its allegiance from the Grand Lodge which constituted it to " another Masonic power . " It is the warrant which constitutes the lodge ; it is
the warrant which bestows on the members the authority to meet as a lodge of Freemasons , and exercise their rights and privileges as such ; and it is the warrant which places it in subordination or allegiance to the Grand Lodge which granted
Article 219 Of The Book Of Constitutions.
it . Therefore , to transfer the allegiance of a lodge from the Grand Lodge to which it is due by virtue of its warrant to some other Masonic power is equivalent to transferring the warrant , which is the written authority for constituting and holding the lodge , and Article 221 provides that " No warrant can be transferred under any circumstances . "
Again , in this very letter it is mentioned by the Grand Secretary " that it was always ruled in the Australian cases that such a question cannot be discussed in open lodge "— -that is to say , that the brethren cannot meet together as a lodge for the purpose of discussing the question whether they shall or
shall not transfer their allegiance as a lodge from one power to another . Therefore , if this question cannot be discussed , it cannot be resolved either in the affirmative or in the negative , either by a large or by a small majority . What can be done is this . The members of a lodge ,
meeting together , not in their corporate capacity as a lodge , but as individual Freemasons , may assemble for the purpose of discussing and resolving the question whether or no they shall transfer their allegiance as Masons from the Grand Lodge which constituted their lodge to some other Masonic
power . They may resolve this question in the affirmative , unanimously , by a large majority , or by a bare majority , and they may , if they choose , determine that , whatever the result of the resolution , whether it be carried unanimously or by a laro * e or small majority , it shall be regarded as binding on the whole
body . They may make it a condition of their joining the other Masonic power that they shall be allowed to retain their organisation such as it was under the power they are desirous of leaving . But they cannot do any of these things as a lodge , and therefore they cannot transfer the allegiance of the lodge
from the power which constituted it to another power . They are bound by the tenour of their Masonic obligation to obey the Grand Master and his duly authorised representatives , as well as the laws and ordinances of Grand Lodge ; both those which are on the Statute Book at the time of their initiation
and those which may thereafter be placed thereon . But the acts of individual Masons are not binding on those members of a lodge who may elect to dissent from those acts and refuse to be governed by the consequences ; and as it is impossible for those who have made up their minds to transfer their allegiance as
individual Masons to carry their purpose into execution without quitting the body to which they belonged , that is , without " retiring" from their lodges ; those who do not retire
become the lodge—in diminished numbers , of course—and with them Article 219 declares that "the power of assembling remains , " provided they are at the time , and continue to be always , not " less than three " in number .
A further remark may be conveniently added , leaving other remarks which have occurred to us to some future occasion . The other night United Grand Lodge declined to recognise the so-called Grand Lodge of New Zealand . If then , just for the sake of argument , we accept the ruling of the Grand Registrar
in the case of the Australian lodges which have constituted for themselves Grand Lodges whose status we recognise—and it is undoubtedly expedient that in their case it should be acceptedhow will it be possible for Grand Lodge to recognise the act of those New Zealand lodges , which by the votes of a majority
have transferred their allegiance to an irregularly-constituted Masonic power , to a body which , by our refusal to recognise it , we virtually affirm is not a " Masonic power" at all ? " It vvas always ruled , " the Grand Secretary tells us in the letter referred to , " in the Australian cases that such a question "—to wit , the
question of transferring the lodge allegiance—¦ " cannot be discussed in open lodge . " But if the majority of the members of a lodge , or indeed any number of them , acting collectively , but
as individual Masons , resolve on transferring their allegiance , what is this but a secession or retiremnet from our ranks to a body which it has been virtually settled has no business to exist ? And if such a secession or retirement takes p lace , on what
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Article 219 Of The Book Of Constitutions.
ARTICLE 219 OF THE BOOK OF CONSTITUTIONS .
Many correspondents besides "Lex Scripta" have been inquiring where , in our reports of the proceedings of United Grand Lodge , will be found the Grand Registrar ' s ruling concerning Article 219 of the Book of Constitutions , to which we had occasion to refer in our article of a few weeks since on the
" Surrender of Warrants . The decision , however , though no doubt it is filed in the archives of Grand Lodge , was not contained in the report of any meeting of that body that we are aware of , but will be found in a letter addressed by our Grand Secretary to the District Grand Secretary of the District
Grand Lodge of Wellington , North Island ( N . Z . ) , on the 4 th November last , in reply to one addressed to him by the latter , on the 14 th June previous . It was published in the New Zealand Craftsman of the ist February of the current year , and it was the ruling contained in this letter to which we took exception in
the article referred to . From this important communication we gather that the District Grand Secretary of Wellington ( N . Z . ) , having requested the opinion of our Grand Lodge authorities on "the subject of the majority of a lodge having the power to transfer it to the jurisdiction of a local Grand Lodge , " our
Grand Secretary delayed sending a reply until he had had " the opportunity of conferring on the point with the Grand Registrar , " and having so conferred , that he then replied as follows : " The question was raised during the formation recently of the various Australian Grand Lodges , and it was then officially decided that
it was a case where the majority of the members had a right to decide the matter on behalf of their lodge , and that the rule contained in Article 219 , Book of Constitutions , which allows three members to hold the warrant , did not apply , as the majority were not ' retiring' from the lodge , but were merely transferring
its allegiance to another Masonic power . And the Grand Registrar considers that this ruling should apply to the case of the New Zealand lodges . I must mention that it was always ruled in the Australian cases that such a question cannot be discussed in open lodge . "
W'hen we wrote our article on the " Surrender of Warrants " our remarks were based on the recollection of what we had read in the New Zealand Craftsman of February i , 1890 . We have , however , since read the letter in question again most carefully , and though we are always most ready to defer to the opinion of
so enlightened a legal authority—especially in a strictly legal question of this kind—as the Grand Registrar , we are more convinced than ever that his decision cannot be justified by anything contained in Article 219 itself or in any other Article in our Book of Constitutions . We have already pointed out that the
said Article lays it down clearly , without any reservation whatsoever of any kind or in favour of any particular class of cases , that " Should the majority of any lodge determine to retire from it , the power of assembling remains with the rest of the members , but should the number of members remaining at any
time be less than three the warrant becomes extinct . " But , the Grand Registrar is represented to have argued , it was decided when " the various Australian Grand Lodges were being formed that this law did not apply , seeing that the majority were not " retiring" from the lodge , but merely transferring its allegiance
to another Masonic body . To this we rejoin that ( 1 ) there is nothing in the wording of the Article itself to indicate that the word " retire " possesses , or is intended to possess , the particular meaning assigned to it by the Grand Registrar in this or any other class of classes , and ( 2 ) it is not in the power of a majority
of the members of a lodge to " merely transfer" its allegiance from the Grand Lodge which constituted it to " another Masonic power . " It is the warrant which constitutes the lodge ; it is
the warrant which bestows on the members the authority to meet as a lodge of Freemasons , and exercise their rights and privileges as such ; and it is the warrant which places it in subordination or allegiance to the Grand Lodge which granted
Article 219 Of The Book Of Constitutions.
it . Therefore , to transfer the allegiance of a lodge from the Grand Lodge to which it is due by virtue of its warrant to some other Masonic power is equivalent to transferring the warrant , which is the written authority for constituting and holding the lodge , and Article 221 provides that " No warrant can be transferred under any circumstances . "
Again , in this very letter it is mentioned by the Grand Secretary " that it was always ruled in the Australian cases that such a question cannot be discussed in open lodge "— -that is to say , that the brethren cannot meet together as a lodge for the purpose of discussing the question whether they shall or
shall not transfer their allegiance as a lodge from one power to another . Therefore , if this question cannot be discussed , it cannot be resolved either in the affirmative or in the negative , either by a large or by a small majority . What can be done is this . The members of a lodge ,
meeting together , not in their corporate capacity as a lodge , but as individual Freemasons , may assemble for the purpose of discussing and resolving the question whether or no they shall transfer their allegiance as Masons from the Grand Lodge which constituted their lodge to some other Masonic
power . They may resolve this question in the affirmative , unanimously , by a large majority , or by a bare majority , and they may , if they choose , determine that , whatever the result of the resolution , whether it be carried unanimously or by a laro * e or small majority , it shall be regarded as binding on the whole
body . They may make it a condition of their joining the other Masonic power that they shall be allowed to retain their organisation such as it was under the power they are desirous of leaving . But they cannot do any of these things as a lodge , and therefore they cannot transfer the allegiance of the lodge
from the power which constituted it to another power . They are bound by the tenour of their Masonic obligation to obey the Grand Master and his duly authorised representatives , as well as the laws and ordinances of Grand Lodge ; both those which are on the Statute Book at the time of their initiation
and those which may thereafter be placed thereon . But the acts of individual Masons are not binding on those members of a lodge who may elect to dissent from those acts and refuse to be governed by the consequences ; and as it is impossible for those who have made up their minds to transfer their allegiance as
individual Masons to carry their purpose into execution without quitting the body to which they belonged , that is , without " retiring" from their lodges ; those who do not retire
become the lodge—in diminished numbers , of course—and with them Article 219 declares that "the power of assembling remains , " provided they are at the time , and continue to be always , not " less than three " in number .
A further remark may be conveniently added , leaving other remarks which have occurred to us to some future occasion . The other night United Grand Lodge declined to recognise the so-called Grand Lodge of New Zealand . If then , just for the sake of argument , we accept the ruling of the Grand Registrar
in the case of the Australian lodges which have constituted for themselves Grand Lodges whose status we recognise—and it is undoubtedly expedient that in their case it should be acceptedhow will it be possible for Grand Lodge to recognise the act of those New Zealand lodges , which by the votes of a majority
have transferred their allegiance to an irregularly-constituted Masonic power , to a body which , by our refusal to recognise it , we virtually affirm is not a " Masonic power" at all ? " It vvas always ruled , " the Grand Secretary tells us in the letter referred to , " in the Australian cases that such a question "—to wit , the
question of transferring the lodge allegiance—¦ " cannot be discussed in open lodge . " But if the majority of the members of a lodge , or indeed any number of them , acting collectively , but
as individual Masons , resolve on transferring their allegiance , what is this but a secession or retiremnet from our ranks to a body which it has been virtually settled has no business to exist ? And if such a secession or retirement takes p lace , on what