Masonic Jurisprudence.

Whilst the Constitutions do not explicitl y state that previous to suspension a brother must be called upon to show cause , still such has always been understood , and appeals have from time to time been admitted on that ground by Grand Lodge , even where the appellant did not put it forward . An instance of this occurred in September , 1880 .

The unauthorised printing of Masonic proceedings has been held to be sufficient cause for suspension . Article 205 defines this Masonic offence , bul , unfortunately , leaves much to be inferred . It states that nothing may be printed or published without competent permission , " -which , by

the laws and regulations of Masonry , is improper to be published . " It would have been far more satisfactory had some examples been g iven . As it is , many brethren imagine that Ihe Article onl y re-affirms part of tlie obligation in the First Degree , and do not scruple to furnish , even to profane journals , accounts

of lodge meetings and proceedings . There are , of course , certain journals whicii have in thc proper manner obtained permission from competent Masonic authority to print and publish Masonic information of this kind , and the editors naturally are held responsible for the common sense interpretation of the Article of the Book of Constitutions .

There ought , however , to be some little checlC placed upon the growing tendency to publicity . One influential weekly paper the writer has seen has a "Masonic Column , " in which , in addition to Masonic

intelligence , the prospects of local brethren ' s accession to office are , from time to time , discussed , and it is by no means uncommon to find the illustrated papers containing illustrations not onl y of public Masonic functions , but of private ones .

Those concerned in the conduct of these journals cannot In blamed ; but it ought lobe known that brethren who suppl ) information , without liaving obtained permission , render

themselves subject to suspension , and , if the offence be repealed more than once , to expulsion . In the same category would be included the offence of making public comment on what transpired in lodge .

In September , 18 S 0 , Grand Lodge had a case of this kind before il . A certain brother having a cause of complaint against some members of his lodge , wrote to the District Grand Secretary about it . The case vvas appointed to be heard in due course , and the District Grand Master being unable lo attend

and the Deputy being away , the District Grand Registrar was ajijioiiited to preside . Unfortunately , that brother had identified himself vvith the faction opjiosed to thc appellant . The case vvas decided against him , and he then printed an account of the proceedings , and in commenting on them described them as a

" ridiculous farce . " For this he vvas suspended . His appeal to Grand Lodge Was successful , inasmuch as proper notice had not been given lo him . Grand Lodge , however , felt strongl y on the merits of the question , and said what it thought of this brother .

Chaos And Confusion In New South Wales.

CHAOS AND CONFUSION IN NEW SOUTH WALES .

Recently I detailed in the Freemason an undesirable aud unhappy stale of affairs in connection with Chapter Masonry in New South Wales , namely , the absolute refusal of the Supreme Grand Chapter of Scotland to recognise as sovereign bodies the Supreme Grand Chapter of Royal Arch Masons and the Grand I . odge of Mark Masier Masons of New South VVales , both of vvhich were founded several years ago . It was also

explained that there is , and has been , for some ) ears past a District Grand Chapter in the Colony under the Scottish Constitution . The prevailing disunion has latterly been intensified in another and quite unexpected a direction , that is to say , within the vcry confines of the United Grand I . odge ( Craft ) of New South Wales . In plain words , the Grand Master and the Board of General Purposes are at daggers drawn . The trouble has arisen

over the granting of a warrant for a new lodge in Sydney . Thc regulations , it is necessary lo observe , are very different from English Masonry , for , whereas in this country il is the Grand Master's sole prerogative to issue warrants , in New South Wales the Board of General Purposes is practically the motive power . The following is the New South Wales rule :

" 10 7 . —Every application for a warrant to hold a new lodge must be by petition to the . band Master .... The petition must be recommended by the Master and Wardens of a regular lodge , and be transmitted to the Grand Secretary , who shall submit same to the Hoaid of General Purposes at its next sitting , when , if same be approved , the Grand Master will be recommei e ' ed to g-aut tl . e prayer of the petition , " & c .

Now for the facts surrounding the dispute . From a " special report " of the Board of General Purposes , on the incident in question , I gather that , in the first instance , the petition for a warrant to open a new lodge was signed by brethren , mainly seceders fro m an existing lodge in the " eiropUis , siirdfrs in consri ] iierceof dissatisfaction with the results of the tbctioiis for clliceis . Twice the Board of General Purposes declined to

Chaos And Confusion In New South Wales.

recommend the Grand Master to grant the prayer of the petition , or petitions , strictly speaking , inasmuch as the signatories to the second were different in a great measure from the first documeir , whilst the name proposed for the new lodge had also been changed . Tne arguments advanced by the Board of General Purposes for its action s ^ em to be reasonable and

cogent , namely : " 1 . That there were already quite sufficient lodges meeting in Sydney . " " ¦> . That the Board could not see that it was in the best interests of the Craft to reward disaffected brethren by entrusting them with the warrant of a new lodge . "

" 3 . That the intimation that certain of them would ' leave Masonry , ' unless they got what they were pleased to ask for , did not impress the Board favourably . " Fhe petitioners , after the second rebuff , appealed direct to the Grand

Master , who recommended the petition " to the favourable consideration of the B G . P . " But the Board of General Purposes stated in its special report : " No new light had been thrown on the question that would permit of an honest reversal of previous decisions . The Board , therefore , felt compelled to adhere to its conviction that the petition could not be approved ot , and , consequently , it declined to recommend it . "

After this pronouncement one would have considered the matter at an end . However , the climax was of an unusual character , inasmuch as the Grand Master not only granted the much-sought-for warrant , but consecrated the new lodge in addition . The Board of General Purposes accordingly compiled a very exhaustive report of the whole circumstances ( through a sub-committee ) for the consideration of the Grand Lodge ,

which circumstances included a digest of evidence given by brethren at an inquiry held by the Board , as also respectful , but at the same time pointed , criticism of the Grand Master ' s line of action . At the end of the report , however , was an " explanatory note , " signed by the President , a Past Dep . Giand Masier , by-the-bye , in which he stated that in presenting the report he wished it to be distinctly understood that it had not been compiled by

him ; that he did not pledge himself to endorse its sentiments nor to support its adoption by Grand Lodge . In due course a large majority of the numbers of Grand Lodge approved the action of the Grand Master by rejecting the report , the remarks of some of the speakers going to show that the Grand Master is immaculate or infallible , in other words , they believe the " King can do no wrong . "

In my humble opinion this is an astonishing and most pernicious doctrine to promulgate in a community that , if anything , is democratic up to its very eyes . But worse follows . The Grand Master issued a mandate to the ellect that the article of the Constitutions quoted above must give place to the following regulation : " Every petition for a new warrant , on arriving at the Grand Secretary's

ollice , must be carefully examined , and then forwarded to the Grand Master , to whom alone it is addressed . If he requires further information , the Grand Secretary must obtain it , and the petition will then be transmit * ed by the Grand Master to the Grand Secretary for submission to the Board of General Purposes . Any recommendation thereon must be made to the Grand Master , not to Grand Lodge . "

the Grand Master prefaced this announcement by stating that the regulation " would remain their ( the members of Grand Lodge ) guide , until one of his successors otherwise ruled . "

Worn tbe foregoing it is not surprising to hear that a considerable amount of unrest just now prevails in Masonic circles in New South Wales , so far as the colonial Grand Lodge is concerned . Indeed , an advertisement in one of the Svdney newspapers intimates that a meeting of subscribing Past Masters , Masters , and Wardens was to be held at the Oddfellows' Temple , Sydney , on May 23 , "to consider important questions

concerning the actions , rights , and duties of the President and the members of the Board of General Purposes , and any other business , tkc . " It is of some significance to note that the chair was to be taken b y M . W . Bro . Sir J . P . Abbott , K . C . M . G ., the immediate predecessor of the present Grand Master . Further developments of this singular phase of Australian Freemasonry will , no doubt , be anticipated with some considerable interest in this part of the world . W . F . LAMONBY .

Provincial Grand Lodge Of West Lancashire.

PROVINCIAL GRAND LODGE OF WEST LANCASHIRE .

Bro . the Earl of Lathom , Provincial Grand Master , presided on the 2 / th ult ., at the annual assembly of the Provincial Grand Lodge of West Lancashire , held in the theatre of the Winter Gardens , Morecambe . Among those present were Bros . R . Wylie , Dep . Prov . G . M . ; Captain Garnett , G . S . D . Eng . ; Rev . T . Barton Spencer , P . G . Chap . Eng . ; John

Houlding , P . G . D . Eng . ; together with the following retiring Prov . Grand Officers : Bros . C . Forbes Bell , P . S . G . W . ; E . G . B . Watts , P . J . G . W . ; Rev . Dr . Porter , P . G . Chap . ; R . Prosser White , P . G . Treas . ; George Oakley , P . G . Reg . ; Thomas Loftos , P . D . G . Reg . ; W . Goodacre , P . G . Sec ; George Barclay , P . S . G . D . ; R . Rawlinson , P . S . G . D ., J . E ,

Williams , P . J . G . D . ; J . Fineberg , P . J . G . D . ; Charles Gibson , P . J . G . D . ; R . E . Stringleman , P . G . Supt . of Works ; Simon Jude , P . G . D . C ; E . Pritchard , P . D . G . D . C . ; J . Worthy , P . A . G . D . C . ; J . Stubbs , P . A . G . D . C . j E . C . Jones , P . A . G . D . C . ; A . K . Boothroyd , P . G . S . B . ; W . Longbottom , P . D . G . S . B . ; - J . Dawber , P . G . Org . ; E . Payne , P . A . G . Sec . ; W . W .

Webster , P . G . Purst . ; J . Macauley , P . A . G . Purst . ; F . Smith , I ' . H . Evans , J . Adams , W . Taberner , R . W . Gow , and W . Boden , P . G . Stwds . On the roll of 125 lodges being called , only two ( EUesmere 730 and lUskuh 950 ) did not respond . Letters of apology were read from Bros , the Earl of Derb y , thc Rev .

J . E . Jolly , and T . W . Rostron . Thegei . eral attendance was about up to the average when the lodge meets beyond the Liverpool district . The P . G . SECKUTARY , in his annual report , said it could not be otherwise than gratifying that the first year of his lordship ' s rule as P . G . M . had been marked by a continuance of the prosperity and success which in so