Ar00403

®iji>JHasottkMax. THURSDAY , l ^ Kgp JAN . 3 , 1889 .

Edited by W . BRO . JAMES STEVENS , P . M ., P . Z ., <{ o , & c .

Ar00400

Published every Thursday Morning , price ONE PENNY , and may be had from all Newsagents through the Publishers , 123 to 125 , Fleet Street , E . C . Subscribers to THE MASONIC STAR residing in London and the

Suburbs will receive their copies by . the first post on THURSDAY MORNING . Copies for Country Subscribers will be forwarded by the NIGHT Mail on Wednesday . TERMS , including postage , payable in advance : — United Kin . u-doin iiml

Countries comprised Places not in OCIKTHI comprised in Indin , Posf . il Union . Postal Union . via lirindisi . Twelve Months ... 6 s . 6 d . ... 8 s . 8 d . ... 10 s . lOd . Six Months 3 s . 4 d . ... 4 s . 6 d . ... 5 s . 6 d . Three Months ... Is . 9 d . ... 2 s . 4 d . ... 3 s . Od .

Post Office Orders , payable at the General Post Office , London , E . G ., to the Printers , Messrs . ADAMS BROS ., 59 , Moor Lane , London . E . C . Postal Orders and Cheques should be crossed

& Co . and all communicatiens concerning Subscription s and Advertisements should be addressed to them . All other communications , letters . & c , to be addressed " Editor of THE MASONIC STAR . 5 ! l . Moor Lane , Fore Street . London , E . C . "

Publishing Offices : 123 to 125 , FLEET STREET , E . G .

Original Correspondence.

Original Correspondence .

*„* TVc do not hold ourselves responsible for the opinions expressed by our Correspondents . HOW INNOVATIONS IN RITUAL ARE MADE .

To the Editor of THE MASONIC STAR . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , This week I visited an old lodge which has passed its centenary , and in opening up to the third degree in answering the W . M . ' s question , " Whence come you , " the J . W . replied " the W ., " and the S . W . followed by saying he was going to " the E . " I have once heard this answer given in another old lodge , but

was inclined to think it was a slip . This time , on enquiry , I find that it is the regular working . My lodge is only 22 years old , but it is supposed to have the Emulation working , and in it I am taught that , in opening up , the J . W . is travelling from E . to W ., and in closing returning from W . to E . Now which is correct ? Fraternally yours , Denby Leigh , Yorks , Dec . 21 st , 1888 . B . '

* . * You can unhesitatingly inform the brethren who j ) ermit the tilnn-e deviation from ancient ritual that they cannot have theslightest conception of the heautiful allegory contained in our traditional history , and that they are doing Freemasonry a . great ¦ irrong liy perpetuating such error . —ED . M . S .

To the Editor of THE MASONIC STAR . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , The various letters in your paper under above heading doubtless express the feelings not only of their w riters but of many members of the Craft fairly well ; but I quite agree with " Rus in Urbe " when he says " They may talk and talk as much as they please , but

that ' s what it amounts to and ends in after all . " On the subject of division of the metropolitan lodge area a great deal of talking was done a few years ago , and with what result' ! Perhaps all your readers do not file their newspapers as I do ; so I ' ve taken the trouble to unearth a few , all bearing date the year of grace LSH 2 . in which reference is made to this very subject .

On May Gth , 1882 , I find in the Freemasons' Chronicle a letter suggesting the subdivision of the metropolitan area into four Metropolitan District Grand Lodges , each taking one-fourth of the lodges then meeting at the hall . On May 10 th , a letter in the Freemason approving the idea , but varying details . On May 27 th . a letter in the Freemason treating on the subject , and saying the

PROVINCIAL GRAND LODGES .

writer " thinks the time has fairly come , ' & c . In the same issue of this organ a leading article is devoted to the consideration of the subject , which says that "there are advantages in the way of a friendly discussion . " but that " no action can properly or legally arise from public discussion or abstract resolution , as Grand Lodge

itself could not pass any such resolution favouring such ideas without invading the direct and distinct prerogative of the Grand Master "; such a re-arrangement , & c ., must come from the " propio mot it r " of the Grand Master alone . This article then says , " We see no reason whv the G . M . should not be adrised , " ^ : c .

Original Correspondence.

The next step appears to be a notice of motion thus : " That , having regard to the great increase in the number of lodges in the metropolitan area during the past twenty-five years , and the consequent almost total exclusion of the members thereof from any participation in Grand Lodge or Provincial Grand Lodge honours , this Grand Lodge desires to respectfully represent to His Royal

Highness the Most Worshipful Grand Master the propriety of subdividing such metropolitan area into four District Grand Lodges . " In the Frecin axons' Chronicle of 3 rd June , the proposer of that resolution writes that " he has heard from the Grand Secretary that that resolution has not been received by the Board of Masters , and therefore will not be placed on the agenda of business at the

ensuing Quarterly Communication . The reason given is the receipt of the following opinion from the Grand Registrar : —¦ " I think the motion is out of order , and ought not to be received . In my opinion any number of brethren may out of Grand Lodge petition or memorialise H . R . II . the Grand Master to

establish a now Provincial Grand Lodge , but I do not think it would be regular to take a vote of our Great Legislative Assembly binding Grand Lodge to make the representation on the subject to the Grand Master . The matter is entirely within the prerogative of the Grand Master : Grand Lodge has no power or authority with respect to it . "

The proposer then writes to the Grand Secretary , stating that he considers this to be an unconstitutional interference , & c , and that he , at the next Quarterly Communication , will rise in his place and question the propriety , & c ., of the rejection by the Board of Masters , & c . On June 7 th , appears the agenda—resolution omitted . The Freemason of 10 th June thus writes : — "The Quarterly

Communication of Grand Lodge took place on Wednesday . The proposer of the rejected motion raised a question of privilege , and brought forward a complaint as regards a motion which had been refused ( as we held ) properly by the president of the Board of General PURPOSES " (?) but after an exhaustive speech by the G . M . it was ruled to be distinctly out of order ( as we ventured to surmise )

by the Pro . G . M . The question here , it will be remarked , was not the consideration of the suggested subdivision , but the refusal of the Board of MASTERS to place same on the agenda paper ; Bro . vEneas Mclntyre stating " that the board was right in rejecting a motion on a matter that could not be properly discussed in G vand Lodge , " and that " it was not a matter that came within the

cognizance of Grand Lodge at all , and further that the constitution of provinces , & c . was a prerogative of the M . W . G . M . " To this the brother replied , stating that his proposition was " that a respectful representation be made to the G . M ., " < fcc . The Pro . Grand Master finally said : —Now , this was obviously a very serious question . It touched the prerogative of the Grand

Master . Rightly or wrongly , the subdivision of the metropolis into four Grand Lodges raised a constitutional question in the craft as serious as any that could be conceived , and therefore it became , as he apprehended , a matter of absolute necessity that any motion for that ; purpose should be expressed in language to which no possible objection , technically , or on larger grounds , could be taken .

But those words were absolutely unintelligible ; there could be no such thing as four District Grand Lodges in London . It was absolutely without sense or meaning . A District Grand Lodge Was a totally different thing to a Provincial Grand Lodge , and therefore ; in a motion that was as serious as this , it became necessary to contrast every word with the greatest care , and to require that a

motion that goes to affect the highest and most constitutional interests of the craft should be couched in the most apt and precise language ; and on that ground , though it was upon a narrow ground , he conceived that the Board of Masters were right in refusing to submit such a motion to the Grand Lodge ; and he thought that he , in that chair , and the Grand Lodge , should give

their support to the Board of Masters , and he had , consequently , no doubt or hesitation in ruling that such a motion was out of order . On 17 th June , The Freemason again alludes to the subject at length , but stating that " the Pro . G . M . carefully and cautiously expressed no opinion as to the other and very important

questionthe absolute prerogative of the Grand Master . " The Freemasons ' Chronicle of same date publishes long letters on the subject , one of which , signed Peter , says that " the Metropolitan Lodges require more looking after than they can possibly get under existing circumstances . " So ends Act I .

The question comes up again on 12 th August , 1882 , when Th-Freemason told us the subject is to be brought up again with some slight verbal alterations in the motion—and on 19 th August adversely criticises same at length , saying that " the whole proposition is ultra rires , "—though The Frevmasons' Chronicle of same date says : "We see nothing in this notice to evoke

anything like an objection to its being inserted in the agenda paper . " However , this amended notice is thus referred to in the Chronicle of 26 th August : — "Extract from a letter received , 21 th Aug ., from Grand Secretary . " " The proposed notice of motion was submitted to the Board of Masters at their meeting last evening , when the following communication from the Earl of Carnarvon , & c , was read : —

" Bro . ' s notice of motion , dated 25 th July , has been duly laid before me by the Grand Sec , and having carefully considered its import I am clearly of opinion that the notice is one which cannot be placed on the agenda paper for Grand Lodge , inasmuch as it mic-ht lead to interference with and encroachment on the

undoubted prerogative of the Grand Master , and with his action in the performance of the important duties of his high office , as set forth in the Constitutions of the Order ; and consequently the Board of Masters ruled the notice of motion could not be received , " End of Act II .

I believe there is a third act to this comedy , but have not time just now to make myself fully acquainted w ith the details . It may lie that I shall ask your indulgence for a further letter on the subject , perhaps next week . Meanwhile , MASONIC STAR readers , this waawhat occurred in 1882 . Write and ventilate the whole