Dual Masterships.

DUAL MASTERSHIPS .

T ^ HE right of a Mason to belong to two or more Lodges is one that is freely acknowledged by the Grand Lodge of England , and to a very great externtne 01 uuai mts

; principle memuersuip me sanction and recognition of subordinate Lodges , but the opinion is by no means unanimous in support of

the system , and it would be a by no means difficult task to rally a large and influential section of the English Craft around the banner of opposition , should

it ever be deemed desirable to start a crusade against it . But in view of current opinion on the point we do not recognise such a movement as either likely ,

necessary or desirable . The system m practise has not yet produced any particular evils , nor has it led to anything likely to call for energetic action on the

matter , but that it is one virtually kept in check both by law and custom is evidenced by the fact that Grand Lodge especially prohibits dual masterships , under circumstances

except very exceptional , wnue many subordinate Lodges exercise authority in opposition to dual membership by making it one of tneir iaws tnat

oye- no joining memuer smm ue eligible for any office in the Lodge , which relies in such cases on its own initiates to supply the ruler and his assistants year by year .

Looking at the matter superficially it may be asked , is there any necessity for this restrictive caution at the hand of Grand Lodge ? is there any

reason to suppose that a Mason will not do his duty to the Lodge that elects him as Worshipful Master

just as well because lie Happens to noia a similar office in another Lodge , as if he were free and unfettered ? or is there any justification for the implied

supposition that a joining member of a Private Lodge will not study its interests with equal enthusiasm as does the brother who owes to the Lodge his initiation

into the secrets and privileges oi freemasonry ? Viewed superficially , as we have said , the answer to these ouestions would nrobablv be Given in the

negative , but a fuller consideration of the various points involved would , with equal probability , put a different construction on the matter , and

we should be inclined to recognise the wisdom of Grand Lodge in prohibiting dual masterships , and endorse the policy of those Private Lodges which

consider themselves perfectly capable of managing their own affairs , putting a veto on outside

interference , or , to express the matter m more euphonious terms , imported supervision . The whole system of Freemasonry is based on symbolic teaching ,

and is must be apparent to the merest novice that divided supervision on the part of the chief officer appears inconsistent with a proper discharge of the work , coupled with a sincere desire to advance the welfare of the bodies presided over . ' In the case of Private Lodges excluding Joining Members from office the motive must be looked for elsewhere : here we

Dual Masterships.

find a desire to allow promotion to all in turn , and it is recognised that the free importation of outside initiates might not only check this , but probably put a stop to it altogether—at least for a time , limited or

extended in proportion to the number of Joining Members introduced . On these lines , then , limitation is wise , although there is very little in the annals of English Freemasonry to justify the assertion that it

is wiser than perfect freedom would be , for , as a matter of fact , the subject does not appear to be one that has come prominently to the front . We had often regarded the limitation set down by

Grand Lodge in this particular as somewhat unnecessary , but experience has taught us that there is seldom any reason for permitting the same Brother to hold the office of Worshipful Master in two Lodges at

the same time , while grave complications and endless difficulties might arise if it became usual for such dual officialism . That oceasions do arise , however , the annals of Grand Lodge clearly prove , for we

occasionally find dispensations granted , and no one seems to suffer in the result , although there is often the feeling that the second Lodge must indeed be

sorely pressed if it cannot muster among its members more than one brother able to fill the chair . In case the Senior Warden of a Lodge does happen to hold the supreme office in another Lodge it seems to us

better to elect the Junior Warden , with the understanding that the old Senior Warden is to retain office for another year , and that the succeeding officers shall

eacn be promoted a step , as would be tne case 11 no irregularity occurred in the regular elevation to the chair . But there are very many among us who persist in arguing that such a course entails hardship

on the subordinate officials , and that the juniors suffer if the same brother remains in the office of Senior Warden for two successive years . If the

Junior Warden can and does rise to the chair in such a case , and is followed at the succeeding installation by the Senior Warden there cannot possibly be any

narasnip on any one , tne laws oi tne institution win have been complied with , and the regular flow of promotion will not have been upset .

Family Jars.

FAMILY JARS .

TT would be very difficult to explain all the details J- to an outsider and fully justify the apparent

internal strife existing among Freemasons in regard to the official recognition of such a near relative as the

recently established Grand Lodge of New Zealand , and we are of opinion that some better decision might be come to in regard to this and similar occurrencies .

The struggle for independence is no new one , nor is it confined to Freemasonry . We need go no further

than an ordinary private family for a practical illustration of the matter , and in a very large number