Grand Lodge And Article 219.

GRAND LODGE AND ARTICLE 219 .

HPHE Quarterly Communication of Grand Lodge •* - for June 1893 will long be memorable in tbe annals of the Craft . No doubt many of tbe brethren who swelled such an exceptionally large meeting were

drawn by the elections oi the various Boards , but the large number who remained all through a very long ancl intricate legal argument , proved that great intelligent interest was taken by the Craft at large in what cannot but be regarded as one of the

most important constitutional questions that has been brought before Grand Lodge for a long time . The close attention with which each speaker was listened to showed that tbe brethren recognised that they were exercising their highest privilege as

members of the premier Grand Lodge , that of declaring judicially , once and for all , by the voice of Grand Lodge , what the law of Masonry , of which they are the makers as well as the interpreters , really is , and of deciding an appeal for justice from brethren

aggrieved by a decision of the official advisers of Grand Lodgo , which they considered erroneous . Very briefly stated , tho question at issue was whether the aggrieved brethren were , as they claimed to be , and as Grand Lodge ultimately decided they

were , the Cambrian Lodge of Australia , No . 656 , under the Grand Lodge of England , though for five years deprived of their Warrant ; or whether they were simply a few brethren practically expelled from the Craft for wishing to adhere to their allegiance .

A number of subsidiary questions arose , but the main point was whether Article 219—which provides that " should the majority of a Lodge determine to retire from it , the power of assembling remains with the rest of the members , but should tho number of

members remaining at any time be less than 3 the Warrant becomes extinct "—did or did not govern the case . Grand Lodge , after a careful hearing , decided

by a very large majority—two , if not three to onethat Article 219 did apply , and that the Colonial Board and the Grand Eegistrar wore wrong in the view they had taken . We fail to see what other course was open to the

brethren . With all due deference to the V . W . Grand Eegistrar we consider Bro . Eve fully proved his case . He laid before Grand Lodge such a clear exposition of what is the historical , legal , and common sense meaning of the Article , and he supported his argument so

conclusively from the words of Lord Zetland , Lord Carnarvon , and others , and from the decisions of Grand Lodge , that no room for doubt was left . Brother Eve showed most pitilessly that tlie Grand

Registrar himself had in the case of New South Wales itself furnished the clearest statement of the true law that could be desired , viz ., that "the minority have to submit to the will of thc majority ; yet in the matter of continuing to hold a Warrant , no matter

what the majority , if any three brethren of the Lodge continue the majority cannot surrender it . And , therefore , to protect the rights of the minority and of

those who choose to adhere to their allegiance there is that very distinct rule made iu the Book of Constitutions . " The Grand Eegistrar made a good losing fight of it , but had a hard task before him . He could not

gainsay his previous utterances ; and he had to try and find some fresh point in the Cambrian case to justify his ruling in 1889 being in direct opposition to his ruling in 1885 . His argument was more

ingenious than ingenuous , and though he succeeded in confusing some of the brethren he failed to convince the majority , if , indeed , he convinced any one at all . It was admitted that Article 219 took its rise from

the Antiquity Case in 1779 , and the Grand Eegistrar made a slip in saying that that was a question between the Ancients and the Moderns , and the seceders went from one to the other . The body to

which the majority went over was the Grand Lodge of all England at York ; not the Grand Lodge of the Ancients . The Grand Lodge at York was a body recognised by the Grand Lodge of England as a legitimate Grand Lodge ; and the disparaging remarks

of the Committee of Charity as to " York Masons " cannot well be held of weight beside the explicit recognition of its position in the Constitutions of 1838 , where it is mentioned on the same footing as the Grand Lodges of Scotland and Ireland . And even in

1784 , when the dispute was still going on , the Constitutions of Noorthouck , himself one of the Antiquity minority , do not venture to dispute the legality of the Grand Lodge at York . The Grand Lodge of the Ancients on the other hand was a rival Grand Lodge .

We do not suppose Bro . Philbrick wished to mislead Grand Lodge ; but when he alluded to history , it is a pity he had not first looked up the actual facts which are fully set out in Gould's History . But whether the secession was to a recognised , or to an

unrecognised Grand Lodge , the broad principle remains unaltered . Grand Lodge declines to allow a majority to coerce an unwilling minority into abondoning their allegiance . The Grand Registrar then argued on a new line

that where territory was ceded 219 ceased to apply , and used some strong language against those who had drafted the resolutions , charging them with endeavouring to mislead Grand Lodge . Here again he was singularly unfortunate , ancl fell into the very

error that of which he was accusing others . He stated that " the only instances where this question had arisen where the territory had seceded were Canada , South Australia , and New South Wales , " and challenged any one to name a case where the minority

had been allowed to retain their warrant . We are not aware that the exact point has yet arisen in Canada or in South Australia , but the Grand Eegistrar omitted the case of Victoria which was