Our Wandering Freemasons.

the man , the Briton , and tho Freemason , to desiderate on this queer and suffering earth of ours ? If they are not contented they are the most ungrateful of mortals !

The Grand Lodge Of Quebec And The Grand Lodge Of Scotland.

THE GRAND LODGE OF QUEBEC AND THE GRAND LODGE OF SCOTLAND .

We have looked into this very serious question , arising out of the Jong correspondence we published on the subject last week , and we think it well for many reasons , to draw the attention of our readers to the matter . The Grand Lodge of Quebec is a modern " swarm" from the Grand

Lodge of Canada , and has within its jurisdiction two English and one Scottish Lodges , which profess to keep up their connexion with their Mother and Constituting Grand Lodges . Upon this first point there is no doubt whatever , Masonically , legally , and internationally , that no right is

clearer by the unchanging common law of Masonry than that of a lodge to adhere to its original constituting authority , if it so desires and determines . It may be more convenient , more uniform , and more symmetrical , to have one territorial authority , but "right is right / ' and no Gr ? nd

Lodge can take away , by any self-asserting resolution of its own , such an undoubted Masonic privilege from a lawfully constituted lodge , just as no Grand Lodge has a legal claim or special authority to ostracize or condemn a private lodge because it prefers the old to the new jurisdiction .

And for the best of all reasons , that the lodge had a Masonic life before the new Grand Lodge had it , and as that Grand Lodge had nothing to do with granting life to the private lodge , so it cannot take it away from it , or in any way , by known Masonic law , interfere with its lawful

existence . Above all , it cannot seek to coerce it into recognition of its authority by any " peine forte et dure , " by the " major" or " minor excommunication . " The Grand Master and the Grand Lodge of Quebec are clearly wrong , by Masonic law and precedent , in claiming any such position

or authority , and it is utterly " ultra vires " to demand of any private lodge the surrender of its charter or the cessation of its union with the Mother Grand Lodge which originally warranted it . In this respect it is quite evident to us , that the two English lodges and the one Scottish

lodge , in the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Quebec , have all Masonic law and equity , and international precedent on their side , and must be sustained in their undoubted and undeniable rights by the Grand Lodges of England and Scotland . Let us take an illustration of this position .

Let us suppose that the Grand Lodge of Maine , United States , had , when Montreal was unoccupied territory , Masonically speaking , chartered a lodge in Montreal , does any Mason pretend to contend , that the Grand Lodge of Maine would allow its daughter lodge to be forcibly separated

from it ? Certainly not , it would claim the wellknown and acknowledged right of prior occupation and original constitution . The matter is so plain that it is hardly worth while pursuing this branch of the subject further . But when we come to the second branch of the subject , we

confess that we are not quite so clear . It seems to us a very debateable question , whether the Grand Lodge of Scotland is justified ( even on its own arguments ) in not only chartering two new lodges , but appointing a Provincial Grand Master in the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of

Quebec . The position of the Grand Lodge of Scotland is this . A concordat of recognition as between the Grand Lodge of Scotland and the Grand Lodgeof Quebec has fallen through , and , therefore , it sets up a " Reviver" of its previous right of occupation . But can it legally do

so by Masonic law ? Like Lord Eldon , we " greatly doubt . " The Scottish Grand Lodge , like the English Grand Lodge , recognized the Grand Lodge of Canada fully , and , ( saving the rights of private lodges ) , withdrew from territorial jurisdiction . Does the failure of a nego

mation for union with the Grand Lodge of Quebec , alter this acknowledged state of things ? And supposing that the Grand Lodge of Scotland can refuse to acknowledge the Grand Lodge of Quebec , can it resume its own claim of " prior oc . cupation ? " Has not that been ceded to the Grand Lod ge of Canada ? These are questions we hope

The Grand Lodge Of Quebec And The Grand Lodge Of Scotland.

the authorities ofthe Grand Lodge of Scotland will not lose sight of , as they are very important in themselves , and gravely affect that most serious of all considerations , the independence of national Grand Lodges , and the interference with lawful territorial jurisdiction . We have not - forgotten

tnatsome Canadian Masons have questioned the creation ofthe Grand Lodge of Quebec , and no doubt a good deal might be said on the legality of its secession and its position . But reregarding it now as a " fait accompli , " and as

we have not raised that objection in England , we think it better " quieta non movere . We fear that what we have said will not please either side in the controversy , ( not an uncommon event ) , but we have spoken as we always do , thoughtfully , honestly , and as " amici curiae . "

The Girls' School.

THE GIRLS' SCHOOL .

( Communique . ) Some arrangements were made , ( as is well known , to many of our brethren ) , in the earlier period of this year , for the purpose of opening the new buildings of the Girls' School , at which

ceremony it was hoped H . R . H . the Princess of Wales might be induced to be present . Communications were opened by Bro . Lieut .-Colonel Creaton , as Chairman ofthe Building Committee , through Bro . Lord Suffield , with General Sir

Dighton Probyn , and subsequently with Mr . Holzman , when H . R . H . most graciously acceded to the request , and promised to honour the opening ceremony with her presence and that of her Royal husband . Unfortunately , as is well known

also , sickness supervened of a very serious character , and Bro . Lieut .-Col . Creaton , on the part of the Building Committee , had reluctantly to point out the inadvisability , under the circumstances , of the ceremony taking place at the time originally appointed . The following

correspondence , which we print with great pleasure , as it will be greatly appreciated by the Craft , hassince passed between Bro . Lie-ut .-Col . Creaton and Mr . Holzman , Private Secretary to H . R . H . the Princess of Wales . Bros . J . Nunn and J . A . Rucker were associated with Bro . Lieut .-Col . Creaton in this agreeable duty . ' ••*- '

Royal Masonic Institution for Girls , St . John ' s Hill , Battersea Rise , July 30 th , 1878 May it please your Royal Highness . Madam , —

We have been deputed by the Building Committee of the Royal Masonic Institution for Girls to offer to your Royal Highness this humble testimony of their loyalty and devotion . We had hoped to have been permitted to present

this key of gold , ( a facsimile of the master key ofthe building ) , to your Royal Highness in person , when you graciously deigned , in answer to the request of the Committee , to promise to inaugurate the new buildings of the Girls' School .

But as that great pleasure has been denied us , owing to the prevalence of sickness in the School , we beg to express the hope , that your Royal Highness will condescend to accept at our

hands to-day this humble tribute of the thankfulness of all the members of the Institution , the gratitude of the Committee , and the attachment and affection of the Craft to which we belong . We have been further instructed to solicit of

your Royal Highness the gracious permission to designate the new buildings , recently completed , as the " Royal Alexandra Wing , " a request which we trust your Royal Highness will , with your wonted kindness , accede to .

With every fervent wish for your health and happiness , and that of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales , our Grand Master , the Patron of the School , we beg to subscribe ourselves , on

behalf ofthe Building Committee , your Royal Hig hness ' s most humble and devoted servants , J . CREATON , Chairman . J OSHUA NUNN . J . A . RUCKER .

Marlborough House , Pall Mall , S . W ., August 5 th , 1878 . Dear Sir , — I have been directed by H . R . H . the Princess of Wales to acknowledge the receipt of the letter , signed by you in conjunction with Messrs . J . Nunn and J . A . Rucker , transmitting

The Girls' School.

on behalf of the Building Committee of the Royal Masonic Institution for Girls a facsimile in gold of the master key ofthe buildings , at the opening of which Her Royal Highness had hoped to assist .

The Princess of Wales sincerely regretted that , owing to the prevalence of sickness in the School , the proposed ceremony had to be abandoned , but Her Royal Highness trusts that at some future time she may be able to pay a private visit to the Institution .

In the meantime , it affords Her Royal Highness great pleasure to accept the key , and to accede to the request that she would permit the new buildings , recently completed , to be designated as the " Royal Alexandra Wing . " I remain , dear Sir , Yours very faithfully , M . HOLZMAN .

Lieut .-Colonel Creaton . Though all will deeply regret that the public visit of H . R . H . has not been accomplished , under auspices so pleasant , and at a gathering of such

importance to the School , we feel ourselves highly privileged in being permitted to state , that Her Royal Highness most considerately proposes to pay a private and special visit to the School .

Original Correspondence.

Original Correspondence .

[ We do not hold ourselves responsible for , or even as approving of , the opinions expressed by our correspondents , but wc wish , in a spirit of fair play to all , to permit—within certain necessary limits—free discussion . —ED . 1

LONDON VOTES FOR THE CHARITIES . To the Editor of Ihe " Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — The proposition of Bro . Tisley , as contained in your number of the ioth inst ., is more specious than sound . It smacks strongly of " The Charity Organization scheme . " However forcibly Bro . Tisley may put his case , the fact

will remain that it is an " election within an election , "" imperium in impcrio , " with the probability that the Committee who are to determine the choice of candidates are personally unable to obtain more than the merest minimum of votes in support of a candidate . 1 cannot augur any success to the efforts of your correspondent . The London brethren who support Town cafes are not likely to submit

the chances of their candidate ' s election as pupils , to the selection or rejection of any staneling , intervening , committee , Tbe provincial brethren who support cases are , as a rule , interested in the welfare of candidates whose parentage is well-known to them and their interest and exertions are solidified , and not ( as so frequently occurs in London cases , property so called ) divided , at times infiuitesimally . I do

not observe that Bro . I islcy suggests any mode of meeting the objection which would ceitainly be made by such brethren as can command a multiple of votes against thc selection of candidates as recipients of thc joint suffrages of the association by individual expression instead of by a record proportionate to the number of proxies contributed . The probabilities of success would be without doubt materially strengthened by entrusting the selection of

candidates to the general body of members rather than to a committee . As now propounded the scheme seems very much like " casting a sprat to catch a whale . " Yours truly and fraternally , H . L . [ We entirely disagree with our brother . Indeed we do not profess to understand his objection . It seems thoroughly unpractical . —ED . ]

To the Edit or of the " Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — I have read with great interest Bro . Tisley's communication in the last number of the Freemason . The small number of London candidates as compired with those of the provinces who have latterly obtained the benefits of our Masonic Institution leads me inevitably to

the conclusion that this state of affairs arises either from apathy or want of organisation amongst the London subscribers . The former hypothesis I dismiss from my mind as incredible . The latter then appears to be the only one affording an explanation of the phenomenon . Organisation does , I believe , alreaely exist to a limited

extent amongst some London subscribers , for it is wellknown that a few distinguished members of thc Craft have by long services and liberal contiibutions aceiuired an amount of influence sufficient by combination at any time to ensure success to the candidate who may be fortunate enough to enlist their sympathies . But the general body of subscribers are not so circum

stanccd , but have individually comparatively liitle influence , and for want of co-operation amongst them we often find candidates for admission to our Schools , who have perfectly legitimate claims 011 our consideration , appearing at four , five , or six consecutive elections , finally becoming ineligible on the score of age , while the fruitless expense and

consequent disappointment to their friends is reallj lamentable . All this cannot , in my opinion , be annihilated by any amount of co-operation , nor do I think it desirable that open competition should be entirely avoided , but a step in the right direction will have been taken when some of the