Canada.

This address was referred to the Board of General Purposes , a body composed of the lending members of Grand Lodge , and which had been chosen before the Quebec movement was inaugurated , and , therefore , without any possible reference to it ; and , after a very careful consideration of the whole subject , the following resolutions were reported to Grand Lodge for its adoption

. ' ¦ 1 . That , in the adoption of Grand Lodge , nothing has occurred to justify a departure from the principles utianimously adopted by it at its special communication , held at Montreal on the 1 st December last , affirming the full Masonic occupation of the Territory over which it has exercised jurisdiction since its formation . " 2 . Thatinstead of the so-called Grand Lodgo of Quebec

, attracting to itself tho Lodges working in the Province , the number of Lodges remaining loyal to the Grand Lodge of Canada is the same as in December last . " 3 . That , in justice to these loyal Lodges , the Grand Lodge of Canada ought not to withdraw that protection over them which was guaranteed when their formation was warranted , and which protection can only be made permanent and assured by a

continued assertion by the Grand Lodge of Canada of its jurisdiction over every part of its Territory . " 4 . That in view of the large number of Lodges in that part of the territory of Grand Lodge , in which exclusive jurisdiction is claimed by tho so-called Grand Lodge of Quebec , who still desire to maintain their allegiance to Grand Lodge , it is not desirable on grounds of expediency to withdraw from the exercise of jurisdiction in the usurped Province .

" 5 . That Grand Loclge trusts that more full discussion ancl consideration will remove the difficulties which now unhappily prevail , and restore the full authority of the Grand Loclge of Canada over all Masonic Lodges within its jurisdiction . " 6 . That Grand Lodge regrets that certain Grand Lodges , upon imperfect knowledge as it assumes , have extended a recognition to the so-called Grand Lodge of Quebec .

" 7 . That in abstaining , for the present , from the exercise of its right of expulsion of brethren who have been summoned to show cause at this annual communication why they should not be expelled , Grand Ledge is influenced , only by a desire to avoid any step which might possibly retard the restoration of of Masonic harmony within its jurisdiction . " The first two of these resolutions were adopted unanimously . And even tho amendment , moved by M . AV . Bro . AA'ilson , P . G . M .,

to expend recognition on grounds of expediency , declared in terms that the Grand Lodge still adhered " to the conclusions contained in the first and second clauses of the report adopted at the special emergent communication held at the city of Mon-Ireal , on the 1 st December last , " which two clauses were as follows : — " 1 . That the Province of Quebec has been fully occupied Masonically , since 1855 , and is still so occupied by the Grand

Loclge of Canada . " 2 . That the Province of Quebec , being fully occupied , Masonically , by the . Grand Loclge of Canada , tlie formation of a second Grand Lodge , within such territory , is illegal ancl unconstitutional , so long as such occupation continues . " It is important to bear this feature of tho proceedings of the Grand Lodge of Canada at its last annual commtnication in mindfor tbe reason that some importance has been attached to

, the fact that the amendment was moved by so distinguished a Freemason as M . AV . Bro . AV . M . AVilscn , and seconded by an equally distinguished Freemason , M . AV . Bro . T . D . Harington . Both those illustrious brethren distinctly affirmed the illegality and unconstitutionality of the proceedings connected witli the formation of the so-called Grand Loclge of Quebec , the memoranda prepared by M . AV . Bro . T . AV . Harington

, being veiy decided upon this point . Ancl as recognition from foreign Grand Lodges can only be based upon the presumed legality of the body recognized , it ought surely to have some weight with such Grand Lodges , that upon this point the Grand Ledge of Canada , after the fullest consideration , is

unanimous . Much of the difficulty connected with a full understanding of this question , arises from misapprehension as to the effect of the British-American Act uniting the four Provinces of Ontario , Quebec , New Brunswick and Nova Scotia . It has been assumed , in all arguments in favour of the legality of the so-called Grand Lodge of Quebec , that the Act changed the political

boundaries of the old province of Canada , over which the Grand Lodge of Canada has exercised recognized authorit y and jurisdiction since the year 1855 ; aud with this assumption , and upon the argument ( by no means applicable to the present case ) , that political Masonic boundaries should be co-terminous , there has been too great a readiness to accept as legal , and as entitled to recognition , the so-called Grand Loclge of Quebec . It is importanttherefore , that a few facts in connection with this

fea-, ture of the esse should be submitted . The old Province of Canada was the result of a union of the . Province of Upper and Lower Canada , effected by an Act of Imperial Parliament in 1840 . But while the two provinces were thus united under one Government and one Legislature , the autonomy of each province waspreserved . By the very terms of the Union Act that autonomy was recognised . No longer U

pper Canada and Lower Canada , they were declared to be Canada AVest , and Canada East . Their boundaries , so far at least as the dividing line petween them was concerned , were defined . Each province has its particular system of laws aucl judiciary , its separate municipal ancl educational institutions . Each session of the Legislature witnessed as many ( often more ) laws passed , restricted in their operations to a single province than to

the two combined . They were , in fact , two distant provinces as to all local questions , as mnch as they are under confederation , to-day , tho difference being that now their local laws are enacted in a Local Legislature instead of a united one , the boundaries , however , have in no way been changed , the old union having had in it more of the federal than of tho legislative character . It was under these circumstances , and at a time when there were separate Provincial Grand Lodges for the two provinces , that

the Grand Lodge of Canada was formed . It was formed after a conferance between the Masons of Canada East with those of Canada AA'est , at a time when either , ou the principle of political and Masonic boundaries being co-terminous , might have formed a Grand Lodge for themselves . They waived in that act all right to plead afterwards this doctrine as a justification for a violent separation of the union thus effected . All tbe Grand Lodges in the world have recognised the Grand Lodge of Canada as having jurisdiction over tho entire Provinces of Canada

AVest and Canada East , and that jurisdiction had never been , questioned until an Act of Imperial Parliament changed the names , but did not in any way alter the boundaries of the two provinces . And upon this point , it may not be inappropriate to say that some confusion had arisen ir . the discussion of this question , from the circumstances of tbe Dominion being called " Canada . " Suppose , as was at one time proposed , that the new Dominion had been called " Acadia" or " British

Amer-, ica , " or any other name — ( and there were many proposed at the time the Union Act was under discussion)—and that the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec bad continued to be known by their old names of Canada West and Canada East , will any one pretend that there could have been the slightest ground for the attack which has been made upon the Grand Loclge of Canada on account of this Act of Confederation ? Ancl if not

, how can it be contended now that the mere accident of name , without change of boundary , has curtailed the juiiscliction of the Grand Loclge of Canada ? The contention cf the so-called Grand Lodge of Quebec , in claiming recognition , goes much further than affirming this principle of Masonic and political boundaries being co-terminous . It goes the length of declaring that an Act of Parliamentpassed

, without tbe interference of Freemasons , for they are forbidden in their character as such , to meddle in politics , may without any direct reference to Masonic matters , destroy a Grand Loclge altogether . If that contention be justified , then since tho 30 th clay of June , 1867 , ( the Dominion of Canada , having been proclaimed on the 1 st July of that year , ) there has been no Grand Lodge of Canada ! If Quebec was masonically unoccupied

territory , then was Ontario similarly unoccupied , and every lodge in either was subject to no Masonic authority , the Grand Lodge from which they held their warrants having ceased to exist ! There is no reason why Quebec , any more than Ontario , should , be considered Masonically unoccupied . Tbe Grand Loclge of Canada has no stated location . The place of its meeting is moveable , being fixed by a vote of the majority at each animal

communication . If the residence of the Grand Master be taken to establish the locality , then Quebec ancl not Ontario was tho seat of Grand Loclge , the Grand Master being resident in that province , and the last communication before tbe formation of the