Contents.

CONTENTS .

EDITORIAL : IN THE DAEK 83 A SOLDIER MASON ' S ADDRESS 81 COLONIAL CLIPPINGS 81 PROVINCIAL XOTES 85

OUR TRESTLE BOARD 85 OBITUARY 85 CORRESPONDENCE 8 G

POINT—LEFT—EIGHT—By The Druid 87 REPORTS OP LODGES AND CHAPTERS 87 & 88 METROPOLITAN LODGES AND CHAPTERS OF INSTRUCTION ... 88 ADVERTISEMENTS Front cover , 82 , 80 . 1 ) 0 , 91 , !) 2

In The Dark.

In the Dark .

HEBE is passing through , ouv correspondence column , a controversy in relation to certain circumstances connected with the refusal of a petition for a new Lodge at or near

Sandgate , in Kent . The masonic interests of our brothers in the Army are greatly concerned in the action taken by

the Provincial Grand Master of that province , and it is of much more than local masonic importance that the particulars which have justified his refusal to recommend the

prayer of the petition to the Most Worshipful Grand Master , in whom alone , it is said , rests the power to grant new Lodges , should be known . There appears to be a

reticence as to the communication of reasons for withholding information which to our mind is not called for . It is possible that the very best of reasons can be given

for the refusal of the petition , which , being given , would satisfy the understanding of the petitioners and meet with loyal acceptance . If that be the case , why should they

be kept in the dark ? If otherwise , can it be wondered that perfect indifference to all appeal should occasion irritation ?

We write "it is said , " and Ave do so advisedly , for although by the Constitutions of the Order it is expressly declared that petitions for new Lodges are to be addressed

to the M . W . G . M ., there is no section which declares that he alone shall be the grantor of new warrants . Inferentiall y , but not positively , the privilege , not the prerogative ,

Way be accorded to the Grand Master , but that is nowhere definitel y stated . That it was never intended , past and present custom notwithstanding , that the grant or reiusal

should be personal to the " chief head and ruler , " is , we take it , evidenced by the fact that every " Charter or

warrant from the Grand Lodge of England , " as the expression is in open Lodge , bears the countersign of others than the Grand Master , and notably that of the

In The Dark.

official representing Grand Lodge itself , " which alone possesses the supreme superintending authority " ( sec . 4 ) , and " the power of regulating and deciding all matters relative to the Craft" ( sec . 5 ) . That it is the " supreme

authority " is further established by the fact that it points out , in distinct terms , what the M . W . G . M . shall do in some cases and may do in others , and although this ( sec . 18 ) , has but reference to the appointment of Grand

Officers , it nevertheless asserts a power of supreme authority which , it may exercise either of itself or by such delegated authority as in its wisdom it may appoint . On this arises the question where and when , and in what

direction , has it delegated an authority to grant warrants for new Lodges . We want " light " thrown on this ; at present the great bulk , if not all of the English Craft , are , like ourselves , " in the dark . "

Where has it been said " custom maketh the law ?" We have met with the phrase and condemn the doctrine . Nevertheless , in the present instance and for the sake of

the argument , let it be admitted . Then the power , privilege , or prerogative , choose whichever term we may , rests with our M . W . G . M . to make—though he cannot unmake—( note that , and see sec . 5)—new Lodges by the

granting of petitions forwarded to him as the Ruler of the Craft , under constitutional law . Now , if it could be supposed possible that H . R . H . could make himself personally acquainted with all the facts and particulars set

before him in such petitions , and decide thereon according to his own unbiassed judgment , we may be sure that his decisions would be at all times unreservedly accepted , not one word being uttered against their propriety and fairness .

But is this the case ? It cannot be ; and consequently the ruling power rests with his advisers , and those advisers should be accountable to the Grand Lodge , and through it to the Craft , for the nature of their advice , when it is

believed that other and more satisfactory counsel could and should have been given . To doubt ' their honesty of intention or desire to do justly would be most improper , probably most unwarranted , and it may

be taken for granted that as a general rule the advice given is sound and fitting . Nevertheless , the possibility remains that it may not be universally so , and instances can be quoted wherein reasonable doubt exists as

to the quality of the advice which may have been tendered . Something of this doubt attaches to the refusal to recommend the petition for a new Lodge at Seabrook ; and it does not seem to us at all out of place that the some fifty or

sixty brethren who have an interest m Freemasonry , sufficient to induce them to foregather in the manner proposed , should feel greatly disappointed by the issue , and desire to know upon what grounds such disappointment should be theirs . This they strive to obtain by respectful