Correspondence.

Correspondence .

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

SUN , SQUARE , AND COMPASSES LODGE , No . 119 , WHITEHAVEN . To the Editor of the " Freemason . '" / Dear Sir and Brother ,

The reply of Bro . Moore is anything but satisfactory . Before , however , adverting to the main question , it may be well to clear the ground in regard to one or two matters which Bro . Moore has imported into his last letter .

ist . That the withdrawal of the warrant of No . 157 was "' known to all Masonic students . " Bro . Moore evidently wishes it to be understood that Masonic students were ignorant of the fact , while , if it were known at all , " none ( he says ) would know better than the Past and Present Officers of Grand Lodge and the

Past Masters of the private lodge affected by the alleged withdrawal or cancellation . " Can anything be weaker than this * . Is it too much to affirm that a very large proportion of the transactions of the period under discussion—i . e ., of the first decade of the present cen' tury—is absolutely unknown to a majority of the Past

and Present Officers of Grand Lodge ? and , certainly , if Bro . Moore's knowledge of Masonic history is to be taken as a sample of the knowledge possessed by all the Past Masters of private lodges , then I think Bro . Moore has himself furnished in his own person a sufficient refutation , of his unsubstantiated assertion . But this is no new discovery ; and , although it was

unknown to Bro . Moore and the Past Masters of his lodge , yet it was well known to Masonic students years ago . I have referred to Bro . Lamonby ' s " History of Craft Masonry in Cumberland and Westmorland "which , notwithstanding it gives accurate extracts from the minute book of the lodge , Bro . Moore is pleased to designate a "second hand" authority . Will he venture to say the same in relation to Bro . R . F . Gould ' s " Athol

Lodges , " published in 1879—11 years ago—in which that learned historian ; . of the Craft quotes the Grand Lodge minutes of 4 th February , 1807 , and correctly assigns to the lodge at the George Inn , in 1807 , a new constitution * r I think this is sufficient to convince any unprejudiced person upon that part of the subject .

2 nd . Bro . Moore , in his letter to the Cumberland Pacquet of 31 st October last , stated that "if Bro . McKay be correct , then Lodge No . 119 had never possessed a warrant of constitution from the Grand Lodge of England , and therefore all its acts , including the initiation of members and the election of officers ,

have been unauthorised , for the Lodge No . 119 possesses only one warrant of constitution , and that is dated the iSth of May , 17 68 . In short , if Bro . McKay were correct , the Sun , Square , and Compasses Lodge would have been , and would be , nothing less than a Masonic fraud from beginning to end , its long line of

Worshipful Masters a lot of Masonic impostors and its members , past and present , would not be regularly initiated Masons . " This is very tall talk , but it possesses no real significance . In his present letter Bro . Moore , however , reiterates the foregoing by alleging that Bro . McKay " indirectly charges the Past Masters of the Whitehaven Lodge since 1805 , with initiating , installing

and receiving fees on the authority ot an old warrant , which , according to Bros . Lane and McKay , belonged to a defunct lodge which had been founded 40 years before the present Sun , Square , and Compasses Lodge , No . 119 , Whitehaven , came into existence , and , what is worse , Bro . McKay insinuates that these Past Masters were well aware of the Masonic frauds they were

committing . " Now , it may suit Bro . Moore to make such rash statements , and to indulge in this kind of language ; but , after all , it is simple nonsense . Is Bro . Moore so bewildered that he cannot , or will not , recognise the

fallacy of his assertion ' r * There is no charge ol "fraud " or of wrong doing , Masonic or otherwise . Whether the present lodge dates continuously from 1768 , or was a new organisation in 1807 , is immaterial on this point , for whatever has been done since the latter date is as legal and regular in the one case as it would have been

in the other . If it is a new lodge from 1807 ( as I contend ) , its existence from that date depended on the warrant issued to it by authority of the Grand Lodge , and consequently the members thereof are not guilty in any sense whatever of the terrible catalogue of wrong doing , which Bro . Moore has conjured up before his too

active imagination . But , reverting now to the main point in dispute , namely , the continuity or otherwise of the old lodge of 1768 , nothing Bro . Moore has advanced alters my conviction that to all intents and purposes the organisation which met at the George Inn , in 1807 , was an entirely new

lodge . Bro . Moore quest , ons this , but adduces not a particle of proof in support of his opinion . He deals freely with " probabilities , " but these cannot be accepted because they are in many instances quite contrary to fact . For example , Bro . Moore suggests " that Bro . Byrne and his friends resigned , having taken

umbrage at the unjust treatment which had been meted out to him . " He admits , however , that " it is perfectly true that Bro . Byrne and a few others did not continue members of the lodge after it was withdrawn from his house , " and now I ask Bro . Moore for some proof that Bro . Byrne ( the Master at the time ) or any of his

Correspondence.

followers did resign . Is it not a fact that he not only did not resign , but that he with all the others were included in the " suspension " by Grand Lodge r Again , I ask Bro . Moore , when and by what authority Bro . Byrne ' s election was " adjudged null and void , " and all the appointments which he had made were ipso

facto cancelled . " Surely the order of suspension could not and did not include such an unconstitutional act as to nullify the Worshipful Master ' seIection , neither did it cancel the appointment of his officers . If , as Bro . Moore suggests , Bro . Byrne resigned , or even had been deposed by the Grand Lodge , and the lodge continued in existence , the Senior Warden "would forthwith" have filled the

'Warden schairtill the next election of officers . " But that was not done inthe case of No . i 57 , andthesimple reason why the Grand Lodge regulation could not be observed in the case of the Whitehaven Lodge was because there was no proper continuity , but a general break up of the old lodge , and the transference , subsequently , of their warrant to some persons who had been , but who had ceased to be , members of the defunct lodge .

Bro . Moore complains ( I think without cause ) that my remarks are not set forth as fully and impartially as they might have been . I plead " not guilty " to the latter part of the accusation , and must urge my consideration for your readers in extenuation of my want of fulness , and will now seek to atone for that grevious error by giving Bro . Moore some additional particulars from official , and , consequently , not secondhand sources .

first of all , let me quote the Grand Lodge minutes of the 3 rd December , 1806 . They are as follows : " Upon reading the Complaint of the Master , Wardens , and Brothers of Lodge 154 , at Whitehaven , with the Certificate under the hand of two of the Magistrates of the same place ' That by the conduct of Byrnes the

Master of the said Lodge the Fraternity had been greatly Injured and disgraced under colour of holding a Lodge of Masons , and as Master thereof , had seduced into his snares every young profligate whom he could lay hold of , four of whom were then lately committed for Robbery , ' Ordered , That the Grand Lodge

for the present suspend all Masonic Meetings under said Warrant 157 , and hereby withdraw the same , that the Warrant be delivered up to Lodge 154 or forthwith transmitted to the Grand Secretary , until an Inquiry take place and the Brothers of No . 157 have an opportunity of being heard , and time to offer to the

Grand Lodge such matter and defence as they shall think fit and be advised to produce . " Thus it will be manifest that not onl y was the Master implicated , but all the members of the old lodge were subject to the same " suspension , " and the sentence and order of Grand Lodge—suspending all meetings and

withdrawing the warrant—were duly obeyed . Whether the " Brothers of No . 157 " ever availed themselves of the suggested inquiry is doubtful . There is no evidence that they did . All the light that is thrown on this unpleasant episode by the official and

other correspondence goes to prove the contrary ; and that , instead of having such an inquiry , some of the members sought reconstruction as a new bod y , by which means they were enabled to get rid of Bro . Byrne and his unwelcome associates .

It will be remembered that the complaint against No . 157 was made by the members of No . 154 , the W . M . of which lodge was a former Past Master of No . 157 , and who was subsequently authorised to constitute the new lodge . And in reply toa letter from the then Grand Secretary Leslie , Lodge No . 154 , wrote as follows :

" We should lament the annihilation of No . 157 , and trust the warrant may be -transferred to decent respectable Townsmen , many of whom formerly sat under it . " These passages , which I have italicised , clearly show that in the opinion of the Whitehaven Freemasons at the period in question—who may reasonabl y be

supposed to have known quite as much as Bro . Moore and his coadjutors what really happened in 1807—the old lodge had absolutely ceased to exist , for on any other hypothesis the phraseology used would have been unmeaning ; and it seems evident that the request of Lodge 154 , that the warrant mi ght be transferred , was

subsequently granted , and the new lodge regularly constituted as indicated in my previous letter ; so that , from actual documentary evidence , I think I have shown that Bro . Moore ' s assertions that the warrant was never transferred is absolutely negatived . Hence I claim to have amply proved my statement that

the Lodge , No . 119 , can only date its continuous working from 1807 . In saying this , however , I must , and do repudiate absolutely ancl unhesitatingly any desire or intention even " indirectly " to " cast a slur upon the characters of fellow Masons , ancl ridicule upon the acts of the Grand Lodge I am supposed to revere ; " but ,

notwithstanding the un-Masonic insinuations which Bro . Moore has so recklessly and unwisely made , I may inform him that I decline to be thus deterred from stating what I honestly believe to be true , and I would earnestly recommend him to a more careful study of the history of his own lodge , and of Freemasonry

generally , in the hope that thereby he may speedily be able to examine evidences dispassionately , and by discriminating between " facts " and " probabilities , " learn the needful lesson that " Truth is great and will prevail . "

Finally , Bro . Moore raises another important question when he alleges that ' * it is not denied that the lodge assembled regularly from the year 1768 to the end of the year 1806 . " In all seriousness 1 challenge Bro . Moore to produce any satisfactory evidence that the lodge did assemble regularly for the whole of that

Correspondence.

period of 3 8 years . I am not writing without due deliberation , and after careful examination , when I say I believe he cannot supply such evidence ; and failing the production of this , I think I am now justified in enquiring on what facts Lodge No . 119 relied for a proof of its continuous working from the date of the original warrant of 1768 , so as to entitle its members to have a centenary warrant in 1885 . —Yours fraternally , JNO . LANE . January 11 .

To the Editor of the " Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , In my former letter 1 confined my remarks entirely to the unconstitutional action of the R . W .

THE GRAND LODGE MOVEMENT IN NEW ZEALAND .

D . G . M . of Otago and Southland , New Zealand , ancl the usurpation by him of authority not conferred upon him by the Book of Constitutions , to prevent the lodges exercising their right of discussing a subject which at the present time is first in importance to tbe Craft in the Colony . I wish now , with your permission , to call

attention to a peculiar statement in the District Grand Master ' s letter of 20 th September , 188 9 , addressed to the Lodge of Otago , No . 844 ( E . G . ) . He quotes Article 219 of the Book of Constitutions , which reads " 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 D . G . M . then goes on to say " If any three members therefore desire to retain the warrant of the lodge , please have their names noted , recorded on the minutes , and supplied afterwards to me . " The

meaning of the D . G . M . is clear . He holds that although a resolution is carried that the lodge translers its allegiance to a new Grand Lodge established in strict accordance with usage recognized by the Grand Lodge of England , yet , if three brethren object to such resolution that they become possessed of the charter and the

privileges conferred by it . I don ' t think this quibble has ever before been raised seriously , or that it ever appeared in print until the Freemason a few months ago discovered it as a trump card to include the colonial lodges who favoured autonomy . I am confident that in no case has the Grand Lodge of England or any other

Grand Lodge ever hinted that such an interpretation as the D . G . M . of Otago and Southland ' s could be placed on Article 219 . The article simply provides for the case of a moribund lodge under the English Constitution , and was designed to prevent the extinction of a lodge as long as three members decided to keep it alive . To

attempt to apply it to the case of a lodge in full activity transferring its allegiance to a properly formed Grand Lodge would be straining the letter and destroying the spirit of the article . Further , such an interpretation leads to an absurdity thus : —The Grand Lodge of England recognises the right of lodges in a colony

to establish a Grand Lodge by agreement between a majority of the lodges holden under the various Constitutions represented in such colony . Deductively the Lodge of Otago has a right to agree with other lodges to the establishment of a Grand Lodge in New Zealand , signifying its assent by resolution . On the resolution

being carried and confirmed the transfer is accomplished , the lodge not becoming extinct but working as " Lodge of Otago" under the new Grand Lodge . The D . G . M ., however , says , that nevertheless any three dissenting members continue to be lhe lodge . The Lodge of Otago in that case would have two existences , one

under the Grand Lodge of New Zealand , the other under the Grand Lodge of England , and assuming the Grand Lodge of New Zealand to be recognised by the Grand Lodge of England the position would be a remarkable one , because the transfer of the lodge to the Grand Lodge of New Zealand would be recognised

by the Grand Lodge of England , and at the same time ( if the D . G . M . of Otago and Southland is correct ) not recognised . The absurdity is apparent . To put the case in another way . Supposing all the lodges in New Zealand to carry resolutions transferring their allegiance to a Grand Lodge of

New Zealand , but that in each lodge three members objected , it cannot be doubted that the Grand Lodge of England would consider the lodges had all gone over to the new body , and would give as hearty a recognition to the Grand Lodge of New Zealand as it did to the

Grand Lodge of South Australia and the United Grand Lodges of New South Wales and Victoria , and that the claim of the three dissenting brethren in each lodge to maintain a separate existence as the lodges under the English Constitution would not be thought worthy of notice . On referring to the proceedings at the establishment of the Grand Lodge of South Australia , I find that in some lodges more than three brethren objected to its establishment . This was reported to the Grand Lodge of England , but the latter body did not in consecjuence recognise the dissentients as the lodges nowcontinue its

charters to them . The same thing occurred in the establishment of the United Grand Lodge of Victoria . Precedents all go to show that in the case of the establishment of a new Grand Lodge the majority have the power of transferring the allegiance of a

lodge ( still remaining members thereof ) to the new body , and that if a majority of the lodges under each Constitution previously represented approve of the new creation , the Grand Lodge is legally formed and receives recognition . This is in accordance with common sense , and the universal principle of the Order impressed on