Masonic Independence.

MASONIC INDEPENDENCE .

I ^ HE work of securing Masonic independence for - particular districts has frequently proved a difficult task for the brethren who sought to establish

the separate authority , and it is probable the annals of Freemasonry record more disagreements on this one point than on any other associated with the

Order . As soon as a number ol brethren are of opinion that the time has come for them to set up a Grand Lodge , or a Provincial or District Grand

Lodge for themselves they are hailed as seceders , discontents or disloyal rebels by those who differ in opinion from them , and it is by no means unusual for controversy on the subject to rage hot and furious ,

hard words bemg used and much ill feeling introduced into what should at most be a question of policy , to be determined after careful consideration and a due

weighing of all the facts urged for and against the suggested alteration . As these proposals for separation are sometimes promoted by brethren of minor degree it not

untrequentiy Happens tiiat tne question becomes one oi Masonic classes being opposed to the Masonic masses , that is to say , the chiefs of a district may see no reason for any alteration—probably because they recognise that the suggested change would mean loss

of power or prestige for themselves , and the setting up oi an equal , or perhaps superior authority in their midst . On the other'hand the lay members may argue that promotion is oi necessity slow in the

district , because there are only a limited number of honours to bestow among a large number of deserving brethren , and on that account a change is

desirable ; or other questions , such as convenience of meeting , or distance from headquarters , may induce them to advocate a change . The tale is an old one , and has been re-enacted time after time in connection

with nearly every movement that has taken place for Masonic independence , and probably will continue to be so as long as Freemasonry exists . Sometimes our own Grand Lodge is concerned ,

sometimes a foreign Constitution , but wherever it is , or whatever is done there seems to be but one fair way of deciding the question—if a majority vote in favour of independence the minority should bow to their decision , and cheerfullv co-operate to secure the

union of opposing elements and thereby promote the general good . It is on such a basis that our own and other Grand Lodges have framed laws bearing on this point , the supreme authority fully recognising

me ngnt 01 individuals to tails ot separation , witnout accusing them of rebellion or sedition , and believing it is possible , for brethren to work for the good of Masonry in general while they are using every effort

in their power to throw off the authority of their superiors , and set up home rule for themselves . But laws cannot govern the actions of individuals , and accordingly it is found that proceedings which are

Masonic Independence.

perfectly legal and legitimate , and are so recognised by the Grand Lodge or other ruling power principally concerned , meet with disapproval in certain quarters , and call forth accusations and recriminations which are quite unnecessary , wholly uncalled for , and utterly at variance with the teachings of

Freemasonry . Mark Masonry in Bengal seems to be suffering at the present time under some such a cloud as we have referred to , and the elements of as pretty a quarrel

as could well be imagined appear to be there , only awaiting the match that shall fire the train , and lead to unknown trouble ; but let us hope the match will out tne

not be iortncommg , raxner unax amerences may be settled amicably , and to the satisfaction of all concerned . Happily the leaders of those who desire separation do not seem to ba afraid of harsh

words ; they proless tnemseives willing to put up with any taunts or insults that may be hurled against them by those who oppose the separation scheme , and do not mind being classed as disloyal rebels , so long

as the cause of their " rebellion is promoted , and the work they have set themselves to perform is brought to a successful issue . A long letter on the subject appears in a recent issue of the Indian

Masonic lieview , irom tne pen oi Jtsro . rj . vv . JfarKer , a former Deputy District Grand Master , who is taking a foremost part in the work of securing independence for the Mark Masons of the Punjab . Some of his arguments appear to us to carry conviction , and they will , we hope , secure the attention

they deserve from the members of Grand Mark Lodge , to whom we believe the matter is to be referred . The present District Grand Lodge has jurisdiction over a very large territory , members of the T -a ..- -i . T -1 ! ,..: „„ . mAft ™ : i ~ „ e / -i _ i at utuiurtJ miies ciway itum Cal

„ JjOtlge ueuig J . UUU - cutta , where the meetings of the governing body are usually held . When we consider the difficulties of travelling such a distance even under the most

favourable conditions , mucn less wnat it must be to do so in India , we can well understand the complaint of the Lahore brethren when they say they are virtually shut out from the deliberations of their Grand Lodge , and that it is

impossible for them to get a hearing m Calcutta , just as it would he for the Calcutta members to get a hearing at Lahore . We have heard the members of some of the English Provincial Grand Lodges

complain because they had to travel irom tne east to the west , or from the north to the south of their county , a journey perhaps occupying an hour or two ; but what would thev think of starting on a 2000 mile

journey in our Indian Empire , merely to , take a share in the work of their Grand Lodge ? Such a consideration should alone warrant the granting of the prayer for independence , and we can hardly imagine the

authorities holding out when the facts are laid before them , provided they have sufficient confidence in tho brethren of the Punjab to warrant their being formed into an independent District .