Ar00200

WE should not notice the question of recent elections in . Belgium in the Freemason , but for the announcement in a Roman Catholic paper that they are a " triumph ox ' er Freemasonry . " We doubt the fact very much indeed , though xve are aware that the Belgian-Freemasons have-most unfortunately alloxved in their lodges the discussion of " social questions , " and amongst

them that most difficult of all questions , —education . We cannot help repeating our sincere regret , that in any jurisdiction abroad many subjects are dilated upon in the lodges xvhich are really alien to Freemasonry . Nothing can be more injudicious than for Freemasons , xvhether in France or Belgium or elsewhere , to arouse against them , not merely the unchanging " animus "

of the " parti pretre , " but the [ feelings and opinions of moderate , thoughtful , and religiously-minded persons . The unrestrained use of speech is as objectionable as the violence of an unscrupulous Press ; and too many Freemasons seem to forget that in saying xvhat they knoxv beforehand must hurt andxvound the consciences and feelings of many , they are throwing ridicule

on their oxvn Masonic professions , and doing despite to the alxvays kindly teaching of Freemasonry . That the Belgian Freemasons have been both unxvise and incautious in their servile imitation of French follies and erraticism in respect of Masonic changes , xve are perfectly axvare ; but that they have any influence over the elections is one of those chimerical fancies xvhich ,

xvhether in affectation or reality we knoxv not , Roman Catholic writers ' like to indulge in . If , on their part , the Roman Catholics would only leave Freemasonry to Freemasons alone , if good they would produce good , if bad and xvrong in principle and practice , they xvould put it to the best of tests : they xvould assuredly soon come to naught .

* * # WE rejoice to note the onxvard progress of Royal Arch Masonry . We xvere perusing some autograph letters of the learned Sir W , DRUMMOND , the

other day , xvho became a Freemason somewhat late in life , and xvas especially struck xvith the beauties of Royal Arch Masonry . It is not too much to say , as he xvell puts it , lhat Royal Arch symbolism deserves to be studied more closely arid scientifically and expertly than has heretofore been the case .

ON looking over the correspondence between the Grand . ' Lodge of Quebec and the Grand Lodge of England , we find the folloxving letter from our Grand Secretary , Col . SHADXVELL H . CLERKE , xvhich so terselyand correctly

puts the whole case , that xve venture to reprint it : Freemasons' Hall , London , W . C , ioth August , 1 SS 0 . ¦ Dear Sir and M . W . Brother , —

•I have duly laid before the Grand Master your letter of the 31 st March , in xvhich you request that the three lodges at present holding under this jurisdiction in Montreal should be transferred to that of the Grand Lodge of Quebec . In reply , I am directed by his Royal . Highness to refer to my predecessor ' s letters of the 31 st March ,

1 S 75 , and Gth December , 1 S 77 , and to remind you that it xvas expressly stipulated at the formation of the Grand Lodge of Quebec that the three lodges in question should remain under the jurisdiction of England , and his Royal Highness regrets that he cannot noxv deviate from an arrangement which xvas made and fully acquiesced in at that time . I have the honour to be , dear Sir and M . W . Brother , yours fraternally , SHADWELL H . CLERKE .

Bro . GRAHAM , in his reply , states 1 " I beg to say that at its formation the Grand Lodge of Quebec made no such stipulation , and entered into no such treaty xvith the Grand Lodge of England , or xvith any other Grand Lodge . " But xvhat about the report of the Joint Committee , published last xveek , approved of by the twp Grand Lodges of Canada and Quebec ? Had the xvords no meaning ? Had Bro . GRAHAM forgotten them ?

# * THE legal position of the Grand Lodge of Quebec , as before the laws of the land , is a very serious matter , and in the eyes of all laxvyers is one of paramount importance in the discussion of jurisdictional questions . We do not affect lo understand the views

of the Quebec or American Freemasons on the subject . We alxvays understood that Freemasonry to meet legally must be tolerated , if not expressly sanctioned , by the State xvhere its lodges assembled . But that if any laxv of the land forbad its assembly , howex'er much such a law might be regretted , and sought to be repealed , as long as it xvas law , Freemasons '

lodges could not lawfully assemble . In Austria at the present moment Freemasonry is held to be illegal . In Hungary it is legal . The Vienna and Austria Freemasons , though deeply deploring the fact , bow very properly to the laxv , and meet at Presburg . It xvould seem from some recent articles as- if Quebec and American Masons held that Masonic

lodges could meet , if even they incur the penalties of a Secret Societies Act by so doing . One writer says the law was passed- by a Roman Catholic majority , another says the Freemasons do not mean to take cognizance of the "Act . " Indeed ! Is there then a dispensing power for Masonic bodies as regards the Laxvs of the Land ? Is it hot the universal

binding law of Freemasonry to " obey" the behests- of the Supreme Legislature ? We can only express our opinion , that more dangerous and un-Masonic arguments xvere never used , and that if persevered in they may lead to very serious results . We have no hesitation in saying that the Quebec Grand Lodge ought at once to obtain a legalizing and enabling act ,

and that until it does so , if its lodges meet , they meet illegally . It is but fair however to observe , that though the illegality of the Grand Lodge of Quebec is , as xve held , a very serious matter " per se , " it does not come before the autho ' rites of the Grand Lodge of England in

any xvay , nor have they really anything to do with it . If tne Grand ' Lodge of Quebec was in any xvay put down or collapsed by action of the Laxv of the Land , the only effort would be , as far as we in England are concerned , that " the Grand Lodge of Canada xvould resume its jurisdiction .- The rights of the English lodges xvould be saved under any circumstances ,

History Of The Royal Masonic Institution For Boys.

HISTORY OF THE ROYAL MASONIC INSTITUTION FOR BOYS .

( Continued from page 2 gjA ) FROM THE APPOINTMENT of BRO . REV . W . J . RODBER , G . C , TO THE RESIGNATION 01 * BRO . SIR DAVID POLLOCK , P . G . S . W ., 1 S 41-46 . 1 he period that follows the resignation of Bro . T . Moore is comparatively uneventful . The same quiet policy appears to hax-e been pursued and with apparently the same results . Of course , the first-duty xvhich devolved on

the Gox'ernors and Subscribers . on being informed of Bro . Moore ' s resignation xvas to elect a nexv Treasurer , and in acknowledging the letter xvritten by Grand Secretary White , at the instance of his Royal Highness thc President of the Institution , and , after expressing their regret that Bro . Moore xvas no longer able to continue in office , the Committee hoped his Royal Highness xvould be pleased to communicate to them any suggestions

he might have to make " with respect to the appointment of a future Treasurer . " At the Special General Meeting held on the nth February , 184 . 1 , a reply to this communication was read , his Royal Highness pointing out that the office of Treasurer xvas an elective one , but at the same re-•commending Bro . the Rev . W . J . Rodber as being well qualified for the post , and a few days later at , another Special Meeting summoned for the purpose

, that brother was elected by 135 votes to six , his opponent being Bro . Philipe . Of course no other result xvas possible under the circumstances . The Grand Master President's slightest xvish appears to have been law in the eyes of the Governors and Subscribers , xx'ho seem to have had no sense xvhatever of the importance of their own position as electors and xvere only too anxious to endorse the recommendation of their chief . But their subserviency was

not allowed to pass unnoticed by the Masonic periodical of the day—the ' •Freemasons' Quarterly Review "•and though xve cannot accept unreservedly its editorial comments , xve must in common fairness allow , they were established on a certain basis of reason . It is impossible that any discredit could attach to his Royal Highness for recommending Bro . Rodber as the future Treasurer of the Charity . The Committee had invited him

to communicate any suggestions he might ha \* e to' make , and he complied xvith their invitation . His Royal Highness had even gone so far as to remind them that the choice of a successor to Bro . Moore lay with the Governors and . Subscribers , but there can be little doubt that , as the "Freemasons ' . Quarterly Review " points out , " the Committee , or at least those members present on the occasion , virtually compromised the privilege of election by

seeking a nomination from the Patron , instead of leaving the matter to the unbiassed judgment and uninfluenced votes of the Governors and Subscribers . " We may also not xvithout reason unite xvith the " Reviexv " in expressing surprise at the novelty of the principle which seems to have guided his Royal Highness in offering this recommendation . " Not , " xvrote the Editor of the Masonic organ in question , " from the long list of Life

Governors , among whom there is a very fair sprinkling of Grand Officersnot from the number of old subscribers to the Charity , among whom are many xvho have served the honourable and expensix'e office of Steward at the Festivals—not from the most efficient of these , xvho have for periods of years devoted their time to its service , but from the most recent subscribers , at the minimum subscription , has the selection been made . That Bro . Rodber

xvas well qualified for thc office on ail other grounds xvas freely admitted : — " That the brother thus honoured is unobjectionable on all other grounds , we may freely admit ; but we protest " —continued thc Editor , who seems to have treated the matter calmly enough— " against the assumption of his peculiar fitness , because he had hitherto been a subscriber for only a fewmonths , and was comparatively unknown to the body of Governors and Subscribers . " It is more than probable that the Editor of the " . Review " did not stand alone in

the opinions he expressed so moderately , but though the selection made b y the Patron must have taken people by surprise , and was the reverse of complimentary to the Governors themselves , the latter had no choice left them but to accept his Royal Highness ' s nomination . The mistake they made xvas in having no will of their own to make the requisite selection from among the many qualified brethren who had already worked so hard to promote the success of the Charity . .

What might have been Bro . Rodber's influence on the fortunes of the Institution , had he been longer spared to fulfil the responsible duties of his office , it is impossible to say . He seems to have taken an active part in its government , if we may judgefrom the regularity of . hisattendance at theCommittee Meetings and Quarterly Courts , though xve cannot trace , by the aid of the minutes , that any important step taken during the term of his

Treasurership was due to his initiative . At the Quarterly Court which folloxved his election , the number of boys on the establishment was restored to 70 , as in 1821 . At the same meeting it xvas arranged to present a silver medal annually to the boy xvhose writing was adjudged the best . The Rules , too , were carefully revised during his first year of office . But xvithin three years of his election Bro . Rodber died , and , hoxvever great may have been his

abilities and his inclination to serve the Chanty , his opportunities for displaying them must have been very fexv . Hoxvever , if we are unable to assign any special credit to Bro . Rodber as an administrator , still less are we able to say anything on behalf of his successor , Bro . David—afterwards Sir David —Pollock , P . G . S . W ., xvho , whatever may have been his abilities , appears to have zealously guarded them from the Committee and the general body of Governors and Subscribers . Bro . Rodber ' s death was announced at the

Quarterly Court held on the ist January , 1844 . On the 15 th of the same month Bro . Pollock was proposed , and on the 20 th he was elected , as Bro . Rodber's successor ; but all xve learn about him from the minutes is that the month folloxving , arrangements xvere made for him to receive the dividends ; that in January , 1846 , he was elected a Trustee , in place of Bro . Ramsbot- - torn , deceased ; arid that in September of the same year , the Secretary

announced that Sir David Pollock , as he had then become , had sailed for India xvithout forwarding to him any communication , and , as a consequence , exceptional arrangements had to be made on the spur of the moment , so that the Secretary might draw a cheque on the bankers of the Institution for the payment ot certain bills , amounting to upwards of £ 100 . A month later , a formal communication xvas read at the Quarterly Court announcing Bro . Pollock's resignation of the Treasurership , and Bro . B . Bond Cabbell ,

who in the meantime had been requested to accept the office , and had con-. sented to do so , if elected , was unanimously chosen his successor . But , save in respect of these two or three indispensable formalities , xve have no mention xvhatever in the Minutes of Bro . Pollock ' s name . He does not even , appear to have attended a single meeting of the Committee or Court of Governors , and consequently we have no grounds on xvhich to base aij opinion of any services he may have rendered to the Institution . He may have done much , or he may have done but little , to assist a Charity of which