-
Articles/Ads
Article NEW BRUNSWICK. ← Page 3 of 4 Article NEW BRUNSWICK. Page 3 of 4 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
New Brunswick.
in her territory . However injudicious such permission might be it could not alter the status of the Grand Ludge of Canada , and the very fact that the Grand Lodges in tho Mother Country recognizes the independent Grand Lodge of Canada and exchanged representatives with it , clearly admitted the right of the Grand Lodge of Canada to the exclusive government ofthe jurisdiction aud yielded all rights to erect new lodges . The
position of the ledges working by sufferance of the Grand Lodge of Canada within tbe new jurisdiction ivas changed , and no power would remain with any such lodge to unite with other lodges in the attempt to erect a new Grand Lodge within tbe territory of the Grand Lodge of Canada ; but such an act if attempted would he so in violation of the terms upon which the lodges were permitted to continue their work as to forfeit at once all privileges under the favour extended to them . There
ivould be Ihcre ' . ore no lodges entitled to act in tho organization of a new Grand Lodge within the occuphd Masonic territory ; surely lodges holding warrants from tho Graud Lodge of Canada could not , without being guilty ol au act of rebellion ; and lodges working under English or Scotch warrants could not , as it would be in violation of the spirit ofthe agreement under which they were tolerated . It must , I think , therefore , be admitted that the Province of
Quebec was not " occupied Masonic territory , " within tbe meanuf the authorities quoted , at the time of tbe attempted organization of tlie Grand Lodge ol Quebec . It is , however , asserted that there is another side of American Masonic jurisprudence which does justify the organization of an independent Grand Lodge for Quebec , that may be thus stated : — "Tint Grand Lodge jurisdictions are co-terminous with political [ boundaries , and that when a new territory or state is
created by Legislative enactment out of what had therefore existed as one Government , it is open to the Lodges working in the new territory to form an independent Grand Lodge . " AA'ithout occupying your attention by discussing whether this can be called a rule of general application , justified by masonic law and usage , or entering upon tbe much debated question as to whether or not a recognised Masonic juris diction can be effected by outside legislative enactment , I pass onto consider whether
such rule , if swlmiKocl , -, vouUl justly- tho iicUon of our Quebec hrethreu in the formation of a Grand Lodge . As I understand such a rule , there must be a new territory formed by taking a part out of and from old limits , so that no doubt can arise as to whicli part is entitled to erect the new Grand Lodge . It has been so in all tbe cases in the history of American Grand Lodges where , iu a new territory , a Grand Lodge has been erected . Surely no Masonic jurist would
contend that any outside legislative enactment could dissolve a masonic organisation or effect a political change that would give to both parts of a divided territory the right to organise a new Grand Lodge , and so determine the existence of and sweep away a recognized independent organization . Let us then consider for a moment the history of the Provinces now called " Quebec " and " Ontario . " Prior to the year 18-10 , there were two distinct British Provinces called " Upper
Canada" and "Lower Canada , " in each of which there existed lodges holding warrants from England , Ireland or Scotland , and governed by local Provincial Grand Ijodges . By an act of the Imperial Parliament in 1810 , a Legislative Union was effected ; but tbe distinction between the provinces was preserved , the one being called "Canada AA est . " the other "Canada East" and although there was but one Legislature for both divisions , yet laws wore from time to time passed affecting each separate
divisional district of Canada known as "East " aud "West . " The lodges continued to work , as before , under the separate local masonic authorities from the time of the Legislative Union , iu 1840 , up to the time when , in 1855 , lodges from both Canada East and Canada West united in the formation oi the Grand Lodge of Canada . By an Act of Imperial Parliament , whici took effect on the first of July , 1867 . the Dominion of Canada was formed which united Canada East , called " Quebec , " Canada
West , called " Ontario , " Nova Scotia and New Brunswick . The interprovincial boundaries remained as before , but the local Legislatures , with limited powers , wero restored to the former upper find lower Canadian Provinces , now called Ontario and Quebec and a general Parliament establish ! d far the whole Dominion . What had been originally Upper Canada afterwards Canada AA'est , was named" Ontario , " and what had been originally Lower Canada , afterwards Canada East , was named " Quebec . "
New Brunswick.
No new territory was formed , and tbe Grand Lodge of Canada continued to hold and exercise jurisdiction over the Lodge in Ontario aud Quebec , and the lodges in both Provinces continued to be represented in the Grand Lodge of Canada . If under these facts , lodges in Quebec can form an independent Grand body , lodges in Ontario can do so likewise . Quebec can have no right that Ontario has not , and the Grand Lodge of Canada
with its recognized position , its distinguished and eminent membership and its honourable records , can be deprived of its territory aud swept from the sisterhood of Grand L idges . I hold that if the ledges of two political divisions , in each of which an independent Grand Lodge could have been established , elect to come together in convention and unite in creating one masonic government extending over both such divisions , no severance of the masonic jurisdiction so formed can be made
except by resolution within the Grand Lodge so established . This I think is the position of Quebec and Ontario . Change of name is of no importance ; they were actually separate and distinct divisions at ihe time the lodges of each came together aud erected the Grand L' -dgc of Canada . Tho sepaiate divisions have been always recognized ; Grand Lodge , by vote being convened one year in Canada East ( now Quebec ) another year in Canada West ( now Ontario . ) A Grand Master elected at one
time from one district and then ( rem the other . Tlie Dominion Act of 1867 made no such territorial change as to alter existing boundaries , it merely restored a local legislature that the separate districts bad before enjoyed . I am of opinion then , that even judged by what is called the "American Rule , " there was no right in the lodges that assembled in convention at Quebec in October last , to organize an Independent Grand Lodgefirst , because the territory was
, already occupied by tbe Grand Lodge of Canada , and secondly because no new territory had been formed . If you should agree with me in the opinion I entertain , it is unnecessary to discuss the mode of proceeding ; but if you should be of opinion that tbe right existed , it will tben be your duty to enquire whether the Quebec movement has been conducted according to established frm -and usage . I have considered it inv duty to express to you my opinion
Unit tbo so called Grand Lodge of Quebec should not be recognized . I place all the documents received from both sides before you and I ask your careful study and investigation of this important question . I can readily understand and appreciate that the sympathy of this Grand Lodge will be with the Quebec brethren ; that they will , perhaps , be looked on by yon as striving for tbe management cf their local masonic affairs , and your own success in establishing this Grand Lodge now
holding only its third Annual Communication , will naturally lead you to wish our Quebec brethren success in their efforts . But my brethren you must not allow youi selves to be influenced in a matter of this importance by any considerations other than those of masonic right and law . The circumstance under which our Grand Lodge was formed can be no precedent for the action of Quebec . We were rather in the position that the Quebec masons were when they united in tbe erection of tbe Grand
Lodge ol Canada . The jiveat doctrine of Masonic Grand Lodge Sovereignty is on its trial , and I trust that the result will prove that constitutional lulus cannot be infringed with impunity . Each Grand Lodge has its duty in this matter , let us therefore carefully consider ami calml y discuss the whole question that we may arrive at a correct decision . Great diversity of opinion has been expressed among eminent members of the fraternity in sister jurisdictions upon the
Quebec question . I have carefully read the published communications on the subject , and it has appeared to me that too much reference is made to the proposed settlement ol the difference by a recognition of a Grand Lodge of Quebec lor the sake of peace . A . peace purchased at the expense of masonic principle and right cannot be productive of ultimate good . Indeed if such an argument ( if it may be called an argument ) is to prevail , all ancient landmarks may he ultimately swept away .
The expediency of yielding to tbe wishes of the Masons of Quebec aud permitting the organization of a Grand Lodge for that province , is a question for the consideration of the Grand Lodge of Canada alone . With that we have nothing to do . In the Grand Lodge of Canada alone can the desirability of dividing the jurisdiction and erecting a Grand Lodge of Quebec and a Grand Lodge of Ontario he discussed and resolved on . There if separation is thought expedient , the terms can be arranged
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
New Brunswick.
in her territory . However injudicious such permission might be it could not alter the status of the Grand Ludge of Canada , and the very fact that the Grand Lodges in tho Mother Country recognizes the independent Grand Lodge of Canada and exchanged representatives with it , clearly admitted the right of the Grand Lodge of Canada to the exclusive government ofthe jurisdiction aud yielded all rights to erect new lodges . The
position of the ledges working by sufferance of the Grand Lodge of Canada within tbe new jurisdiction ivas changed , and no power would remain with any such lodge to unite with other lodges in the attempt to erect a new Grand Lodge within tbe territory of the Grand Lodge of Canada ; but such an act if attempted would he so in violation of the terms upon which the lodges were permitted to continue their work as to forfeit at once all privileges under the favour extended to them . There
ivould be Ihcre ' . ore no lodges entitled to act in tho organization of a new Grand Lodge within the occuphd Masonic territory ; surely lodges holding warrants from tho Graud Lodge of Canada could not , without being guilty ol au act of rebellion ; and lodges working under English or Scotch warrants could not , as it would be in violation of the spirit ofthe agreement under which they were tolerated . It must , I think , therefore , be admitted that the Province of
Quebec was not " occupied Masonic territory , " within tbe meanuf the authorities quoted , at the time of tbe attempted organization of tlie Grand Lodge ol Quebec . It is , however , asserted that there is another side of American Masonic jurisprudence which does justify the organization of an independent Grand Lodge for Quebec , that may be thus stated : — "Tint Grand Lodge jurisdictions are co-terminous with political [ boundaries , and that when a new territory or state is
created by Legislative enactment out of what had therefore existed as one Government , it is open to the Lodges working in the new territory to form an independent Grand Lodge . " AA'ithout occupying your attention by discussing whether this can be called a rule of general application , justified by masonic law and usage , or entering upon tbe much debated question as to whether or not a recognised Masonic juris diction can be effected by outside legislative enactment , I pass onto consider whether
such rule , if swlmiKocl , -, vouUl justly- tho iicUon of our Quebec hrethreu in the formation of a Grand Lodge . As I understand such a rule , there must be a new territory formed by taking a part out of and from old limits , so that no doubt can arise as to whicli part is entitled to erect the new Grand Lodge . It has been so in all tbe cases in the history of American Grand Lodges where , iu a new territory , a Grand Lodge has been erected . Surely no Masonic jurist would
contend that any outside legislative enactment could dissolve a masonic organisation or effect a political change that would give to both parts of a divided territory the right to organise a new Grand Lodge , and so determine the existence of and sweep away a recognized independent organization . Let us then consider for a moment the history of the Provinces now called " Quebec " and " Ontario . " Prior to the year 18-10 , there were two distinct British Provinces called " Upper
Canada" and "Lower Canada , " in each of which there existed lodges holding warrants from England , Ireland or Scotland , and governed by local Provincial Grand Ijodges . By an act of the Imperial Parliament in 1810 , a Legislative Union was effected ; but tbe distinction between the provinces was preserved , the one being called "Canada AA est . " the other "Canada East" and although there was but one Legislature for both divisions , yet laws wore from time to time passed affecting each separate
divisional district of Canada known as "East " aud "West . " The lodges continued to work , as before , under the separate local masonic authorities from the time of the Legislative Union , iu 1840 , up to the time when , in 1855 , lodges from both Canada East and Canada West united in the formation oi the Grand Lodge of Canada . By an Act of Imperial Parliament , whici took effect on the first of July , 1867 . the Dominion of Canada was formed which united Canada East , called " Quebec , " Canada
West , called " Ontario , " Nova Scotia and New Brunswick . The interprovincial boundaries remained as before , but the local Legislatures , with limited powers , wero restored to the former upper find lower Canadian Provinces , now called Ontario and Quebec and a general Parliament establish ! d far the whole Dominion . What had been originally Upper Canada afterwards Canada AA'est , was named" Ontario , " and what had been originally Lower Canada , afterwards Canada East , was named " Quebec . "
New Brunswick.
No new territory was formed , and tbe Grand Lodge of Canada continued to hold and exercise jurisdiction over the Lodge in Ontario aud Quebec , and the lodges in both Provinces continued to be represented in the Grand Lodge of Canada . If under these facts , lodges in Quebec can form an independent Grand body , lodges in Ontario can do so likewise . Quebec can have no right that Ontario has not , and the Grand Lodge of Canada
with its recognized position , its distinguished and eminent membership and its honourable records , can be deprived of its territory aud swept from the sisterhood of Grand L idges . I hold that if the ledges of two political divisions , in each of which an independent Grand Lodge could have been established , elect to come together in convention and unite in creating one masonic government extending over both such divisions , no severance of the masonic jurisdiction so formed can be made
except by resolution within the Grand Lodge so established . This I think is the position of Quebec and Ontario . Change of name is of no importance ; they were actually separate and distinct divisions at ihe time the lodges of each came together aud erected the Grand L' -dgc of Canada . Tho sepaiate divisions have been always recognized ; Grand Lodge , by vote being convened one year in Canada East ( now Quebec ) another year in Canada West ( now Ontario . ) A Grand Master elected at one
time from one district and then ( rem the other . Tlie Dominion Act of 1867 made no such territorial change as to alter existing boundaries , it merely restored a local legislature that the separate districts bad before enjoyed . I am of opinion then , that even judged by what is called the "American Rule , " there was no right in the lodges that assembled in convention at Quebec in October last , to organize an Independent Grand Lodgefirst , because the territory was
, already occupied by tbe Grand Lodge of Canada , and secondly because no new territory had been formed . If you should agree with me in the opinion I entertain , it is unnecessary to discuss the mode of proceeding ; but if you should be of opinion that tbe right existed , it will tben be your duty to enquire whether the Quebec movement has been conducted according to established frm -and usage . I have considered it inv duty to express to you my opinion
Unit tbo so called Grand Lodge of Quebec should not be recognized . I place all the documents received from both sides before you and I ask your careful study and investigation of this important question . I can readily understand and appreciate that the sympathy of this Grand Lodge will be with the Quebec brethren ; that they will , perhaps , be looked on by yon as striving for tbe management cf their local masonic affairs , and your own success in establishing this Grand Lodge now
holding only its third Annual Communication , will naturally lead you to wish our Quebec brethren success in their efforts . But my brethren you must not allow youi selves to be influenced in a matter of this importance by any considerations other than those of masonic right and law . The circumstance under which our Grand Lodge was formed can be no precedent for the action of Quebec . We were rather in the position that the Quebec masons were when they united in tbe erection of tbe Grand
Lodge ol Canada . The jiveat doctrine of Masonic Grand Lodge Sovereignty is on its trial , and I trust that the result will prove that constitutional lulus cannot be infringed with impunity . Each Grand Lodge has its duty in this matter , let us therefore carefully consider ami calml y discuss the whole question that we may arrive at a correct decision . Great diversity of opinion has been expressed among eminent members of the fraternity in sister jurisdictions upon the
Quebec question . I have carefully read the published communications on the subject , and it has appeared to me that too much reference is made to the proposed settlement ol the difference by a recognition of a Grand Lodge of Quebec lor the sake of peace . A . peace purchased at the expense of masonic principle and right cannot be productive of ultimate good . Indeed if such an argument ( if it may be called an argument ) is to prevail , all ancient landmarks may he ultimately swept away .
The expediency of yielding to tbe wishes of the Masons of Quebec aud permitting the organization of a Grand Lodge for that province , is a question for the consideration of the Grand Lodge of Canada alone . With that we have nothing to do . In the Grand Lodge of Canada alone can the desirability of dividing the jurisdiction and erecting a Grand Lodge of Quebec and a Grand Lodge of Ontario he discussed and resolved on . There if separation is thought expedient , the terms can be arranged