Article 219 And The Cambrian Lodge, No. 656, Sydney, N.S.W.

ARTICLE 219 AND THE CAMBRIAN LODGE , No . 656 , SYDNEY , N . S . W .

We are not surprised that Grand Lodge should have adopted by a handsome majority the resolution submitted by Bro . EVE , Past G . Treas . Not only was the speech in vvhich he urged its adoption an able and impressive one , and well calculated to elicit the sympathies of his audience , but the arguments he employed vvere in strict harmony with those vvhich had been

used on previous occasions in reference to the same or a similar question by such recognised expositors ol our law as the late Pro Grand Master and the present Grand Registrar and President of the Board of General Purposes . Grand Lodge , indeed , fully realised that it could not well , without reridering itself ridiculous , set at naught the arguments which itself had

adopted at the instigation of those very distinguished brethren , and if il felt any slight hesitation as to the course it should pursue on this occasion , it must have been in consequence of the difficulty of reconciling the Grand Registrar ' s utterances of to-day vvith his utterances on the occasions cited by I _ ro . EVE in his resolution .

The case is really a very simple one . The law vvhich governs it was as follows in the 18 73 edition of the Book of Constitutions—see Article 29 , page 71 : "Should the majority of any lodge determine to retire from it , the power of assembling remains vvith the rest of the members vvho adhere to their allegiance ; but if all the members of a lodge withdraw , the warrant

becomes extinct . " It reads as follows in the present Book of Constitutions —see Article 219 : "Should the majority of any lodge determine to retire from it , the power of assembling remains with the rest of the members , but should the number of members remaining at any time be less than three , the warrant becomes extinct . " The Grand Registrar was pleased to lay

some stress on the importance of the omission from the law as it now stands of the words " vvho adhere to their allegiance ; " but , with all deference to liis opinion , vve consider it is only a lawyer of exceptional ability who could have deduced any importance from the omission . When the majority of a lodge retire from it , " the rest of the members " are those vvho do not retire

and vvho must , of necessity , be those " vvho adhere to their allegiance . " Hence the definition laid down in the 1873 edition of "the rest of the members" as those " who adhere to their allegiance " being , as it clearly was , supererogatory , was omitted from the present edition . The material

alteration that vvas made in the law by the framers of thc present edition will be found in the latter of its two clauses . Under the law as it was before 1883 a minority of one or two members was sufficient to prevent the warrant from becoming extinct ; now ihe minority must not " at any time be less than three . "

But while the case is simple enough and must remain so if people will only allow plain English to speak for itself , the Grand Registrar has very adroitl y succeeded in converting pure and unadulterated simplicity into a somewhat complex business , from which vve readily admit it is difficult to educe the clear and absolute intention of the law . Thus , while on the one

"and he admits that under Article 219 , though the majority ( say of roo ) has Mired from it , a minority of three is legally entitled to retain the warrant and with it the power of assembling as a lodge , he points out , on the other hand , that " the rule always had been that the majority of a lodge must rc gulate the minority . " We shall not pause to consider whether

us latter view i . s or is not directly at variance with the admission that Article 219 means what it vvas evidently intended to mean . "deed , vve are prepared to accept the position as set forth by the rand Registrar- however complicated he may have succeeded in making it—up to this point . But wc take the liberty of pointing

't as elsewhere in his speech the Grand Registar was himself particur i' careful in pointing out—that the question whether an English lodge siould remain under the English Constitution and pass under another , is ' <¦ -that cannot be decided in open lodge . He is reported to have said : they chose to meet the brethren out of lodge they could do it ; they

th ll ln l °° gf e—t " at was tne New South Wales decision , that > could not meet and discuss in a lodge an act which would be really an 01 repudiating thc English authority . " We are therefore landed in this « ren . ei y difficult position—that this Cambrian Lodge , No . 656 , Sidney , oouth Wales , has been wiped out of its English existence b y the

rj ¦ fy act ° ' a majority of its members , vvho had met together and de-H ' , to adopt this course , not as the Lodge , No . 656—which the Grand of •,. . ls careful to tell us they were incompetent to do—but as a body the I ! ua * Masons , who would necessarily be incompetent to do outside I'm ^ W ' l ' ^ cou'd not d ° legally when duly constituted as the lodge , all which it results that the warrant of this Cambrian Lodge has been

Article 219 And The Cambrian Lodge, No. 656, Sydney, N.S.W.

irregularly cancelled by the Grand Secretary of a body to which it-was irregularly handed over for cancellation by a majority—or if Bro . EVE or any one prefers it , let us say , a minority—of its members irregularly assembled together to consider out of lodge a question which the Grand Registrar tells us they were legally incompetent to deal with in lodge . And we are told that for all this series of grave irregularities there is absolutel y no remedy !

There are sundry other points to which attention may reasonabl y bedirected . Firstly , as regards what the Grand Registrar described as " that human impediment "—the dissent from a reasonable proposition of an unreasoning minority— " from which Masons were not free , " we are of opinion that the fears of that distinguished brother as to the difficulties which such a minority might create are very greatly exaggerated . When the Grand Lodge of

Canada was recognised by our United Grand Lodge , there were sundry lodges which elected to remain in their old allegiance to the latter body . Of these only three , which meet in Montreal and are located within the territory occupied by the Grand Lodge of Quebec , retain that allegiance , namely , Nos . 374 , 440 , and 640 . There is one such lodge—No . 398—within the territory of the Grand Lodge of Nova Scotia . In the case of the

newlyestablished Australasian Grand Lodges , all the English lodges in South Australia and Tasmania were in favour of the establishment of independent Grand Lodges ; in Victoria onl y one held aloofthe Combermere , No . 752 , Melbourne ; while in New South Wales there is only this Cambrian Lodge , No . 656 , Sydney , which is desirous of remaining under the banner of our Grand Lodge .

Speaking roughly , there were upwards of 200 English lod ges distributed amongst these four Australasian Colonies , which are now , Masonically , independent of England ; yet only two have thought it worth their while to hold aloof from the secession , and we dare say it will not be long before these , of their own motion , will disappear from the roll of our Grand Lodge , and join the local Grand Lodge . Why , then , should we disturb ourexistiner

laws and regulations—which in the main have worked so well—when the proportion of those who elect to remain to those vvho elect to secede is less than one per cent . ' ! Above all , why should vve seek to put an unnatural interpretation upon a law which is writ plain enough in all conscience . It would , doubtless , be exceedingly convenient if all Colonial movements in the direction of secession from our Grand Lodge were absolutely unanimous .

Hitherto some of them have been absolutely , while the others have been only practically so ; and if our Grand Lodge authorities are desirous of saving themselves trouble in the future their best course will be to get the existing law altered and a clause introduced into the warrant constituting a colonial lodge or lodge in foreign parts to the effect that , if the majority of the lodge resolve on seceding from our Constitutions and joining a local

Grand Lodge , in that case the warrant must go with them , and in that case Article 219 will be void and of none effect . But as the law stands at present , it is our opinion—and vve express it with all deference to the Grand Registrar—that so long as a lodge remains obedient to the prescri ptions ol the law , it is out of the power of any person or body to order its removal from our roll of lo'dges .

Then as to the relevancy of Bro . EVE ' S reference to the law as it was in 1779 , here again wc are under the necessity of differing from the Grand Registrar . We suppose that Bro . EVE had in his mind the case of the Lodge of Antiquity , in which PRESTON and quite a number of his brother members seceded from our " Modern " Grand Lodge because they were not permitted to set the laws of that body at defiance , and with the sanction and approval of the Grand Lodge of all England at York—an entirely

separate and distinct body from that of the " Ancient" Grand Lodge—set up the Grand I _ odge of Kngland South of the Trent . On this secession becoming known , the " Modern " Grand Lodge at once recognised those members of the Lodge of Antiquity , who remained true to their allegiance as the lodge . Thus the case , though for other reasons it is not worth insisting upon , is relevant enough .

I . astly , we see no reason why the non-seceding members of this Cambrian Lodge , No . 656 , should be deprived of the rights and privileges they are entitled to exercise under Article 219 , or any other Article of our Book of Constitutions . It was not their fault that the appeal they addressed to the authorities of our Grand Lodge—or if Bro . PHILBRICK prefers the letter in which they asked for advice as to the course they ought to pursue in

the circumstances in which they were placed—was not promptly answered . They are not to blame , because , as he puts it— " the Master , rightly or wrongly , and the Wardens , took the Warrant" to the Grand Secretary of the new Grand Lodge , who cancelled the said warrant , without the requisite authority so to do . Why , then , must these brethren be driven from the fold of our Grand Lodge , when it is not they but the authorities of the local Grand Lodge who have committed the wrong ? We unhesitatingly concede that it would have been far better if these

brethren had fallen in with the views of the majority of their brother members of the Cambrian Lodge , and resolved on joining the Grand Lodge of New South Wales . But this is beside the main question , which is , that these brethren , under Article 219 , had the right to remain under our Grand Lodge , and , in the exercise of their discretion , they determined upon asserting that right . Are they to be punished for this assertion ? Grand Registrar and those who think with him say " Yes ; " but Grand Lodge emphatically said " No , " at its communication on the 7 th instant .