Contents.

CONTENTS .

LEADERS 465 Supreme Grand Chapter . ; 4 66 Provincial Grand Roval Arch Chapter ot Kent 4 66 Provincial Grand Chapter of Durham 4 66 Provincial Grand Lodge of Monmouthshire 4 6 7 Summer Meeting of the Drury Lane Lodge , 2137

The Mark Degree in Victoria 471 The Ascotvale ( near Melbourne , ' Masonic Hall 4 ji The Old Folks at Croydon 471 Scotland 471 CORRESPONDENCERecent Festival Retiuns ' . 473

No . 467 Grand Lodgeof Louisiana , iSSfi 467 The First Grand Stewards . and their Lodges—III 4 68 The Early Organisation of the " Ancients " —VI ( 6 9 The Quebec Trouhle 470 Kgyptian Priesthood 470

Masonry in Portsmouth 473 Notes and Queries 473 REPORTS or MASONIC MEETINGS — Craft Masonry 474 Instruction 474 Royal Arch 474 Instruction 475

Annual Outing of the Lodge of Truth , No . J 2 r , Huddersfield 471 Annual Picnic of the Elkington Lodge , No . 1016 471 Picnic of the Kirkdale Lodge , No . 1756 ... 471 Summer Outing of the Dalhousie Lodge , No . 86 $ , and Kensington Lodge , No . 1767 471

Ancient and Accepted Rite 475 Knights Templar 475 Australia—Red Cross of Constantine 476 Obituary 47 * The Craft Abroad 476 Masonic and General Tidings 477 Lodge Meetings for Next Week 47 8

Ar00101

WE are glad to see that Essex maintains its character as a hard-working province which it has enjoyed for so many years . Indeed , it could hardly do otherwise under the genial auspices of its able and respected chief , R . W . Bro . Lord BROOKE , who obtained his first insight into our mysteries in that excellent school of Masonry , the Apollo University Lodge of Oxford , and

whose later career has more than realised the hopes that were formed of him at its commencement . On Saturday last an especial meeting of the Provincial Grand Lodge was held at Southend-on-Sea for the purpose of lpying , with Masonic ceremonial , the foundation-stone of All Saints ' Church . There was a strong muster of the officers and members of the

different lodges in the province , as well as of visiting brethren from London and neighbouring provinces . The worthy people of Southend itself and its numerous visitors at this season of the year , turned out in great force to witness the unaccustomed spectacle , while the ceremony , in which R . W . Bro . Lord BROOKE , P . G . M ., assisted by his

D . P . G . M ., Bro . F . A . PHILBRICK , Q . C , Grand Registrar , bore the chief part , passed off most successfully . As regards the regular annual meeting of the Prov . G . Lodge , it was arranged that it should be held at the Shire Hall , Chelmsford , on Thursday , when business of the usual character would be transacted . However , of this and the especial meeting

on Saturday we shall furnish a full and particular account next week . For the present it will suffice if we state that the two gatherings are a sure indication of what we have mentioned already , namely , that Essex continues loyally to uphold its ancient reputation as an active and energetic province , which fulfils all the duties of Freemasonry with a punctuality and dispatch worthy of the highest praise .

* # * WE are in a position to announce that a Committee has been formed for the purpose of organising a testimonial to be presented to Bro . F . BINCKES , Past G . Steward , and Secretary of the Royal Masonic Institution for Boys , in recognition of the many and valuable services he has rendered to that

Charity during the last 25 years , and that the Right Hon . the Earl of LATHOM , Deputy Grand Master of England , Provincial Grand Master of West Lancashire , and one of the Trustees of the General Fund of the Boys' School , has very kindly accepted the office of President . The

subject of Bro . BINCKES ' S services to Freemasonry in general , and to the Boys' School in particular , is one that cannot be dealt with justly at a moment ' s notice , and , therefore , we deem it expedient to reserve such remarks as we may feel called upon to offer till such time as the arrangements of the Committee have assumed a more tangible form .

* * * As we indicated in our somewhat brief remarks of last week , it is a matter of course that in his allocution delivered before the Great Priory of Canada at its meeting held at Windsor , Ontario , on the 18 th inst ., Colonel MCLEOD MOORE should have referred at length to the dispute between

the Scottish Templar Encampments in New Brunswick , and the bedy of which he is the Supreme Master . We submit , however , that though he has treated the question temperately enough , and though we agree with him that less precipitancy would have prevented the occurence of the difficulty , his argument in support of the claims of the Great Priory of Canada to

sovereign jurisdiction over the aforesaid Scottish Encampments is quite unworth y both of so skilful a dialectician as Col . MOORE , and so distinguished a bod y as the Knights Templar of Canada . In fact , to use a very expressive phrase , our respected frater has not a leg lo stand upon , his attempted justification of the edict of non-intercourse issued by Great Priory against

M , Encampments being worse than useless . We dare say Col . MOORE ' position is one of supreme difficulty . We bear in mind not only that the resolution of the Canadian Great Priory to sever its relations with Convent General did not originate with him , but that he was distinctly and emphaticall y opposed to the movement . But the resolution having been

Ar00102

carried , and the Prince of WALES having absolved the Canadian Sir Knights from their allegiance to him as the supreme head of Convent General , Col . MOORE , with the loyalty which characterises all his acts , has steadily upheld what are now considered to be the sovereign rights of the Great Priory of Canada , and , in so doing , has unfortunately involved it and himself in

a conflict with the Supreme Templar authority of Scotland . Our readers are sufficiently acquainted with the particulars of this difference , so that we need not restate them here . Moreover , we have discussed the question in all its bearings in a former article , and much as we should like to see the difference removed , we confess there is nothing in Col . MOORE ' S present

allocution which inclines us more favourably towards the Canadian view as enunciated by its Supreme Grand Master . Col . MOORE remarks that it was always a matter of indifference to him whether the Scottish encampments in the Dominion " remained ah isolated body or amalgamated with the English jurisdiction , " and he admits that the edict of non-intercourse

with them is " at variance with the usages of Masonic law in England , by which , until of late , in Templar matters , we have been guided , viz ., ' that a Grand Body , by its mere creation , cannot invalidate subordinate Bodies already existing in the territory over which it assumes jurisdiction . ' " But he goes on to argue , Great Priory , in declaring itself the Sovereign

Templar authority in Canada , hasadopted "the ' American system ' of exclusive jurisdiction , " and hence he considers it " incumbent and a duty to the whole Order , on the part of the Scottish encampments of New Brunswick , to join this Great Priory , after its separation from ' Convent General , ' being then an acknowledged , lawfully

independent governing power of the Dominion . " In other words , because C throws off its allegiance to A , of which it was a part , therefore it becomes the duty of B , which never had anything to do with either of them , to sever its connection with D , the body which created it and to which it has remained and remains subordinate , and place itself under the sovereign

authority of C . Now we are not for a moment disputing that this may be the law of the case according to the American doctrine of exclusive jurisdiction . But with all deference to the respected Grand Master of Canadian Knights Templar , we must take the liberty of pointing out that the American law ( or doctrine ) never has had , never can have , and , so long as the New

Brunswick Fratres remain of the same mind as now , never will have anything whatever to , do with bodies which were constituted by and prefer remaining in allegiance to a non-American Supreme Authority . It may be very desirable that all the Templar Bodies in the Dominion of Canada should accept the sovereignty of its Great Priory ,

We venture to say that the Chapter General of Scotland will place no obstacle in the way of its two New Brunswick Encampments severing their connection with it , and becoming subordinate members of the Great Priory of Canada . But it must be clearly understood that , " the 'American System ' of exclusive jurisdiction , " and Canadian edicts of non-intercourse

notwithstanding , there is no power existing which can force these Encampments to change their present condition , unless they are prepared to do so of their own motion . Here , at all events , it is clear that "force is no remedy" lor the inconvenience arising out of the concurrent jurisdiction of two Supreme Authorities , which have always been separate and independent of each other .

# THE series of articles by Bro . H . SADLER on the " First Grand Stewards and their Lodges , " now being published in our columns , is of a most interesting character . It is true that the names of the Grand Stewards , or Stewards , from the earliest date are to be found in the Calendars for 1775 to

1814 , but as very few possess copies of these rare little books , that information is not of much utility to the majority of brethren , and hence the particulars supplied by Bro . SADLER are of special value . Bro . E . L . HAWKINS " set the ball rolling "on Dec . 20 , 1884 , and now the movement is being continued and accelerated by one who has peculiar facilities for the study of the early lodges with which the Grand Stewards were connected .

* * « IT is to be hoped that those Masonic Students who are competent , will try their hands at tracing the names , etc ., of the lodges on the registers , 1723-5 , which Bro . SADLER has failed to identify . In the Engraved Lists for 1725 there are several lodges which must have been continued on that for 1729

( which was numbered , ); but so far all the efforts of Bros . GOULD , HUGHAN 7 , LANE , and SADLER have proved unavailing , and there are still more than a dozen in the latter list which have not been recognized in that of 1725 . This is unfortunate , and induces us to urge upon our brethren the

desirability of continuing their researches . It is also a misfortune that the lodges in 1723-5 are not arranged according to seniority as on the list of 1729 , and therefore the numbers allotted to the latter cannot be accepted as referring to those of the former years which occupied similar relative positions , though not numbered ,