Correspondence.

Correspondence .

We do not hold ourselves responsible for the opinions expressed by our correspondents , but we wish , in a spirit of fair play to all , to permit—within certain necessary limits—free discussion .

PRINCE FREDERICK LODGE , No . 307 . To the Editor of the " Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , The report of the so-called " Centenary Celebration of Prince Frederick Lodge , No . 307 , " in the Freemason of February 8 th , caused me some surprise , but I had no desire to re-enter the controversial arena in reference to my own work until your very pointed editorial remarks on the matter appeared in the Freemason oi the 15 th inst ., which leave me no alternative , for silence might be construed into acquiescence .

The report above referred to purports to contain extracts from a sketch of the career of the lodge prepared and read by the S . W . It says " the original warrant constituting the lodge , and which is now in its possession , is dated 28 th January , 179 6 , the title of the lodge being ' Loyal Halifax . ' .... In 1 S 08 the Loyal Halifax Lodge appeared to be in straitened circumstances being both in debt and the numbers having been considerably reduced . At this time several

brethren resided at Heptonstall vvho were anxious to form a lodge of their own . Knowing the reduced state into vvhich Loyal Halifax had fallen they thought it a good opportunity of acquiring the dispensation of that lodge and transferring it to Heptonstall . After a fern little difficulties had been settled this was successfully accomplished in 1809 when the lodge vvas transferred to the Stag's Head , Heptonstall , and the name was altered to Prince Frederick , " & c .

The foregoing , supplied by their own members , is , I think , sufficient to show that the requisite continuity of lodge existence vvas lacking , but vve will go a little further and ascertain , if possible , what the " few little difficulties " really vvere and what they then involved .

It may be well , first of all , to give a copy of the original " Dispensation . "To Brothers John Holdsworth , John Collingwood , James Shaw , Ashton Jones , John Bancroft , Daniel Hitchin , and James Heap . " Brethren , —You are hereby authorised to assemble as a regular Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons , under the Title or Denomination of the Loyal Halifax Lodge , at the Ring of Bells , in Halifax , Yorkshire , and to make , pass , and raise Masons as occasion may require . And also to do every other act as a regular Lodge until a Warrant of Constitution shall be made out .

"Given at York , under our Hand and Seal of Masonry , the 28 th day of January , A . D . 1796 , A . L . 5796 . " By the Provincial Grand Master ' s Command . "WM . SPENCER , P . D . P . G . M . " Witness , "J OHN WATSON , P . G . Tr . "

Under this dispensation—no subsequen t warrant of Constitution appears to have ever been issued—the Loyal Halifax brethren met more or less regularly for many years . In 1808 , however , " the Loyal Halifax Lodge got into straitened circumstances , the lodge vvas evidently not only in debt , but vvas considerably reduced in numbers . In this state of embarrassment it had a prospect of recouping itself for the losses , by surrendering the dispensation's about this time a number of brethren residing in the neighbourhood of Heptonstall . . . were desirous of forming a lodge

for themselves . Knowing the difficulties into which the Loyal Halifax Lodge had fallen , they thought the opportunity a good one of setting up the fallen house in their own locality . They were not well versed in the articles of the Book of Constitutions referring to the removal of Lodges , and in their ignorance offered the few remaining brethren of the Loyal Halifax Lodge such a sum of money as vvas deemed by them adequate to pay off their indebtedness . " ( See History of the Lodge of Probity , No . 6 t , by Bro . Herbert Crossley , Halifax , 1888 , pp . 118 , et seq . ) .

The Lodge of Probity , whose history is , of course , in the Library of Grand Lodge , and from vvhich I shall make further extracts , appears to have exercised a provincial oversight over the local lodges , and , upon becoming acquainted with this breach oi Masonic law , at once summoned the Heptonstall brethren before them . Their lodge minutes say : "The Loyal Halifax Lodge , No . 549 , having made an illegal transfer of their Dispensation to several brethren at Heptonstall , ¦ mho were anxious to establish a Lodge at that place , it vvas thought proper to

convene the Lodge of Harmony on this emergency , to take their opinions and sentiments on the subject . The brethren from Heptonstall attended , ar . d stated that under idea that they vvere not acting contrary to any established rules of the Grand Lodge , they had paid the members of the Loyal Halifax Lodge ^ 30 for the Dispensation in question and the furniture , but finding themselves in error they readily acknowledged the same , and requested our assistance in forwarding and

recommending the following Petition to the Provincial Grand Lodge at York , which was unanimously agreed to in full Lodge . It was likewise the unanimous opinion that circular letters should be sent to those members of the Loyal Halifax Lodge who were concerned in the ab < 3 ve illegal transaction , to inform them that unless they submitted themselves on this occasion , and refunded the money thus obtained , such of their names as refused should be particularly noted at a subsequent Lodge , and their conduct marked with the severest reprehension . "

The petition to the Provincial Grand Master states , inter alia , that " we are desirous of forming a Lodge at Heptonstall .... that " the Lodge No . 549 , called the Loyal Halifax Lodge , has for a considerable time been held at the Rose and Crown , in Halifax aforesaid , under Dispensation from the Provincial Grand Lodge at Y ' ork , but is now reduced to a very small number of members , all of ¦ whom are willing to relinquish the said Dispensation in our favour . We therefore

pray that until such time as a Constitution can be obtained by command of the Grand Lodge , or your authority recalled , vve may be empowered by virtue of such dispensation , to assemble as a regular Lodge And we further beg leave to nominate and recommend William Midgley to be first Master , James Fielding to be first Senior Warden , and Thomas Smith to be first Junior Warden of the said Lodge . "

Accompanying that petition was a recommendation from the Lodge of Probity and the Lodge of Harmony at Halifax which , amongst other things , contained the following : " 1 st . The Loyal Halifax has of late years been rapidly decreasing in numbers . " and . A number of brethren residing in and near Heptonstall in this County ,

in a populous district , have found themselves at a distance of nine miles from any Lodge , and are desirous of meeting for the sake of instructions and working , and of promoting the general interest of the Craft . To promote this intention the possession of a Lodge has been desirable , and the majority of the members attending the Loyal Halifax , No . 549 , have consented to relinquish their Dispensation n favour of the brethren at Heptonstall .

3 rd . In alluding to this transaction we are sorry to state that the conduct of the Brethren of the Loyal Halifax , No . 549 , has bcen contrary to the Constitutions of the Fraternity , and altogether derogatory to the character of Masons , inasmuch as they have accepted a pecuniary reward for the Transfer .

Correspondence.

Sth . That the members ot the Loyal Halifax Lodge , No . 549 , are alone culpable , and that the Brethren at Heptonstall have nothing to do with the disgrace . They have been pilfered of their money , and have been the dupes of this unworthy artifice . They have come and met us at this Lodge of Emergency disclaiming every part of this transaction ; surrendered the Dispensation in question to our care , and requested us to assist them in their endeavours to obtain a Regular Lodge . "

Further details of the transaction are given by Bro . Herbert Crossley in his History of No . 61 , to which I am indebted for the foregoing , and on which I based my entries in "Masonic Records , 1717-1896 . " As the result of the pstition , & c , the Provincial Grand Lodge at York permitted the new lodge , formed at Heptonstall , to retain the Dispensation under the title of Prince Frederick Lodge , and so the "few little difficulties , " referred to at the "Centenary Celebration meeting , " vvere " settled . "

In all this , however , it must be apparent to every candid and dispassionate reader that the course of procedure referred to was most irregular—the sale of the Dispensation being absolutely illegal—and that the retention by the new lodge at Heptonstall of the purchased Dispensation could only have been tolerated in consequence of the openly-declared inability on the part of the Grand Lodge to grant any new warrant , owing to the passing of the Act of 1 799 ( 39 Geo . III ., c . 79 ) .

It is to this Act , to which I referred at length in my " Handy Book " [ p . 109 , and see my note in reference to this very lodge on p . 118 ] , that the numerous cases of illegal transfer , and the subsequent premature granting of Centenary Warrants , must be mainly attributed , and no brother will be in a position to arrive at a sound conclusion on this matter who does not view the entire transaction in the light of the peculiar circumstances in which the Grand Lodge of that period was placed , especially in relation to new lodges , owing to that Act of

Parliament , but for the passing of vvhich , I do not hesitate to affirm that the Heptonstall brethren never would have had the Dispensation of the Loyal Halifax Lodge , but would have applied for and obtained a new warrant in the ordinary and regular way . Be this , however , as it may , the fact remains that the members of the old Loyal Halifax Lodge sold their Dispensation to the brethren who afterwards formed the urai Prince Frederick Lodge , and that nnt a single member of the former became a member of such new lod'e .

Now , Bro . Editor , you judicially state that " either Bro . Lane has been too exacting as to what constitutes a lapse of the warrant in the case of this particular lodge , or Grand Lodge too lax in its determination of what constitutes continuity of working . "

To the former part of the indictment I plead " Not guilty . " What I have recorded has been what I conscientiously believe to be true , and I think I have furnished ample proof that the Loyal Halifax and the Prince Frederick Lodges were separate and distinct organisations , and without the least shadow of continuity in working whatsoever . The very petition presented by the new lodge is ,

in itself , quite sufficient to show that this was the opinion of its own members in 1808 when they recommended certain brethren to be the first Master , the first Senior Warden , and the first Junior Warden respectively of the lodge . Such a recommendation was altogether unnecessary if the Prince Frederick Lodge was a continuation of the then defunct Loyal Halifax Lodge , for in that case the members would have elected the Master in the usual way .

With regard to the alternative portion of your indictment it is not for me to enquire into or to discuss the reasons that have induced the M . W . G . M . ( whose prerogative it is ) to grant a centenary warrant , but I may be permitted to state that since 1857 it has been laid down in the " Instructions for applying for centenary jewels " in the Book of Constitutions , that petitioners are required to furnish , not only " the necessary particulars as to the origin of the lodge " but also " proof of

its uninterrupted existence for 100 years . " Let it , however , be distinctly understood that while I do not wish to infer for a single moment that the M . W . G . Master cannot exercise his prerogative by granting a centenary warrant to any lodge that is unable to furnish evidence of the necessary continuity , yet in the present case I affirm that Prince Frederick Lodge is not even now in a position to comply vvith the conditions above cited , inasmuch as I have shown that it only commenced its existence as a lodge in the year 1809 . —Yours fraternally ,

JNO . LANE . Torquay , February 17 th . DUTIES OF D . C . AND MARSHAL ( S . C . ) To the Editor of the "Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , In your kindly notice of my " Freemasons' Directory for Dumfriesshire " you refer to some of the Scottish titles of Grand Officers , and add , soma

of them '' sound strange to English ears , with special emphasis on there being a " Marshal as well as a Director of Ceremonies . " It may be of interest to many of your readers to point out that under Laws 32 and 33 of S . C , the Director of Ceremonies arranges and superintends all ceremonials within any building , while the Marshal forms and orders processions , & c , outside . —Yours fraternally , JAMES S 3 IITH . Dumfries , 17 th February .

RESIGNATION OF MEMBERSHIP . To the Editor of the " Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , I have been hoping that some brother better qualified than myself would call attention to thc decision upon this important question of the Court of Appeal in the case of Finch v . Oake ( on the 22 nd January last ) , which is in direct conflict with the ruling of the V . W . Grand Registrar and the decision of Grand Lodge at the Quarterly Communication held on the Sth March last .

On that occasion an appeal was presented by the W . M . of the Zetland in the East Lodge , No . 508 , against the decision of the Deputy District G . M . and District Board of General Purposes , who reversed his ruling that a brother ' s resignation sent to the Secretary of the lodge was final , and could not be withdrawn before communication to the lodge .

A full statement of the facts and arguments submitted to Grand Lodge will be found upon p . 16 of the Official Report of the Quarterly Communication , as well as on p . 128 of the Freemason for the 9 th March , 1895 , from which it will be seen that a brother of the lodge having sent to the Secretary his formal resignation wrote to the latter proposing to withdraw it before it had been communicated to the lodge , ar . d that , ( when the lodge met some days afterwards , both letters were read , ar . d the W . M . held that the brother having sent in his resignation could not withdraw it , and was therefore no longer a member of the lodge .

In opening the case to Grand Lodge , the V . W . Grand Registrar maintained that a resignation must be to the lodge , that " by itself the letter to the Secretary is nothing , " and that until the letter had been communicated to the lodge there was simply a locus pienitcnlice , and the brother sending it could therefore withdraw it .

The question aroused great interest amongst the brethren present , who appeared to be about equally divided upon it , and in the course of the discussion it was definitely stated by a Past Grand Officer that the late Grand Sec , Bro .