Jurisdictional Rights Of Grand Lodge.

JURISDICTIONAL RIGHTS OF GRAND LODGE .

We have read with considerable satisfaction a paper compiled by Bro . G EORGE GORDON , Past G . Registrar of South Australia , in which he has endeavoured to lay down certain general principles to be adopted by Grand

Lodges established in Knglish-speaking communities in respect of the rights of jurisdiction pertaining to them severally . It is undoubtedly most desirable that some such principles should be agreed to . At present , as Bro . GORDOX points out , they arc " very ill-defined and for want of a clear

understanding between Grand Lodges much harm has accrued to the Craft . " It is quite true , as he says , that " during the last 20 or 30 years the Englishspeaking Masonic world , from this cause , has been constantly more or less agitated by disputes accompanied by word } ' war , much bitter writing , and dissolution of friendship , and too often these disputes have resulted in

Masonic schism . " Equally true is it that " the troubles " of this character "in which the Grand Lodges of the United Kingdom have been immediately concerned far outnumber those of any other Grand Lodge ; " nor do we see any ground for taking material exception to Bro . GORDON ' suggestion that as these conflicts " have

principally been with Grand Lodges or large bodies of Masons in the British Empire , it is to the Grand Lodges of that Empire that the Masonic world has a right to look for * the initiatory steps to be taken for a clearer definition of the principles of inter-jurisdictional Masonic law . " Whether in [ the event of such initiatory steps being taken

by the Grand Lodges located-within the British Empire , the result would be the establishment of an "inter-jurisdictional Masonic law" so far as they are concerned , is a problem wc shall not attempt to solve ; nor shall we waste time in speculating as to whether , if such a code of Masonic law were adopted throughout the British Empire , it would be accepted 03 ' the

Englishspeaking Grand Lodges outside its limits . It certainly would be a great benefit to the Craft of Masonry if some general law , or failing that , a general understanding ' , were adopted by the Grand Lodges in the United States and British Empire for defining their inter-jurisdictional rights , and

great credit is clue to Bro . GORDON for having boldly grappled with the subject and explained his views so clearly . But let us follow him through the various sections of his paper and sec what his opinions are , and how far it will be possible for us to accept them .

i he questions which Bro . GORDON first of all considers are— " ( 1 ) What is unoccupied territory , and what does the term imply ? " and " ( 2 ) On what princi ples must a Grand Lodge be founded to entitle it to recognition as such' ' " Jn answering these questions he states in general terms certain doctrines that have met with considerable support , and then to what extent

the several groups of Grand Lodges agree or disagree with them . His first doctrine is that " a Grand Lodge properly established in any coherent , autonomous state or territory , is solely entitled to charter new lodges therein ,

lo the exclusion of all other Grand Lodges " Ireland and Scotland being , for the purpose of this paper , considered as autonomous Slates . This doctrine , he says , is universally accepted b y the Grand Lodges of the United kingdom , the United Slates and Canada , and Australasia . Mis second

proposition is that when . 1 Grand Lodge has been established in a state or t irriUvry where no local Grand Lodge exists , such Grand Lodge alone is % entitled to charter fresh lodges , but the lodges alread y established do not necessaril y come under the jurisdiction of ihe new Grand Lodge , it being ° P - n to them to remain in tiicir old allegiance " during their own pleasure

nr that of their mother Grand Lodges . " His third proposition is that " any distinct division of the world , " wlu-thcr autonomous or not , which is not ¦ ureacl y " the seat of a recognised Grand Lodge , is ' unoccupied territory , ' ' an } ' Grand Lodge may charter lodges therein until a Grand Lodge is ocull y formed as hereafter stated . " The second proposition , wc are told , is

„ strc , » 'ousl y uphold by the Grand Lodges of the United Kingdom , " and is 'rijiue . sced in " by the Australasian Grand Lodges and by a large majority those in the United Stales and Canada ; while , as regards the third pro-P Mlion , it is accepted by the various groups of Grand Lodges , but under millions which vary materially . There is , however , a condition preliminary ire

acceptance of these propositions which must not be lost sight of , 'en the War of American Independence was closed in 17 . S 3 , and what ' ) c ° n a part of the British Colonial Empire became a sovereign and in-¦ ' ) oTc 'ldCIU St'UC ' UmleV U , C ( k ! % » ' ° n " lhc lj " itccl States , " the Masonic ' C - ^ ° | " . ° SL'tlcs severed their connection with their parent G . lodges in ; j ' | . " iin and Ireland , and established for themselves independent Grand ; ' K - A proposition subsequentl y made to establish a General Grand

Jurisdictional Rights Of Grand Lodge.

Lodge for the whole of the United States never came to anything . There is , therefore , no supreme Masonic authority in the United States , but each state and territory has its own Grand Lodge , which is in itself sovereign and independent of all others . Only in a territory which has no Grand Lodge of it ' s own is there to be found what is Masonically known as

" Unoccupied Territory , " and in such it is open to any of the Grand Lodges in the United States to grant warrants for the constitution of new lodges , there being no instance that we arc aware of in which any Grand Lodge outside the United States has attempted or even dreamt of grantiii" ' such a warrant . In the British Empire the co-ordinate . supremacy of the

three Grand Lodges of the United Kingdom has always been recognised , nor until quite recently has an ) ' ease occurred in which a British local supreme Masonic authority has in any way attempted to question that supremacy outside its own immediate locality . There is nothing unreasonable or unjust still less is there anything absurd , about this claim of the Grand Lodges of

England , Ireland , and Scotland to be supreme over all those portions of the British Empire in which local Grand Lodges are not established . When the original United Stales were British Colonies , they derived their Freemasonry from us and their lodges were content to remain iu allegiance to our Grand Lodges . When they became politically independent , their lodges , or

Provincial Grand Lodges , sooner or later , formed or established themselves as Grand Lodges , and the sovereignty ancl the independence of these latter has been recognised and respected by the Grand Lodges of the United Kingdom . So far all is clear , and the United States and the British Empire severally went their way Masonically as well as politically . But in iS % 6

troubles arose between the private lodges in Canada and their parent Grand Lodges in the United Kingdom , in which it is impossible to say the latter were wholly Srce from blame . The result ol those troubles was the establishment of the Grand Lodge ol Canada , whose supremacy over Canada we recognised on the condition that any of our lodges which might

desire to do so should be free to remain in their old allegiance , while we on our part agreed to issue no more warrants for the constitution of new lodges on Canadian territory . Then arose difficulties in Canada which culminated in the establishment in 1 S 6 9 ol the Grand Lodge of Quebec as independent of the Grand Lodge of Canada of which it had previousl y formed part . In

this case wc expressed our willingness to recognise the new Grand Lodge on the same conditions as had been accepted by Canada , but Quebec would have none of them , though such of her lodges as had seceded from the Grand Lodge of Canada must of necessity have been immediatel y or mediately parties to the treaty between that body and our Grand

Lodge . Other Grand Lodges have also been established in British North America , with which , so far as we are aware , no difficulties have arisen . But the co-ordinate supremacy of the Grand Lodges of the United Kingdom over the rest of the British Empire remained unquestioned until quite recently . True , ihe Grand Lodge of

Manitoba chartered a lodge a few years ago at Gibraltar , but on its being represented to her that Gibraltar was Masonically " occupied " by the Grand Lodges of the United Kingdom , the warrant was withdrawn . Subsequently , but before Victoria became independent of our Grand Lodge , the Grand Chapter of Canada issued warrants for the establishment of certain chapters

in the city of Melbourne ; but when remonstrance was made by us on the ground that Victoria was within the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodges of ( he United Kingdom , it set our authority at defiance , and declined ' lo cancel its warrants . Now that Victoria is independent of the (' nited Kingdom , having its own Grand Lodge and Grand Chapter , this particular question no longer

affects us but the Victorian Constitution ; but the claim of Canada to share in the supremacy , hitherto free ! ) ' acknowledged , of the Grand Lodges of the United Kingdom , remains , and must be disposed of before a satisfactory code of " intcr-jurisdiclional Masonic law" can with advantage be established among the Grand Lodges in English-speaking communities .

For ourselves , we arc content with things as they are , if other Grand Lodges will only let tnem . cniain so . The policy we have followed has been in the main a judicious one , of which we have no reason to be ashamed . Wc have never attacked the supremacy of other Masonic powers . The various questions of jurisdiction which have cropped up from time to time , as in the

ease of Quebec , Gibraltar , and Melbourne have not been of our seeking , but have been forced upon us , and all we have done has been to defend what we conceive to be , and what , as we have said , were till quite recentl y recognised as , our rights . We say , therefore , with reference to this paper

by Bro . GORDON , let there be first of all a clear understanding among the several English-speaking Grand Lodges as to what are and what are not their respective rights , and the way will be prepared for the adoption of an " intcr-jiirisdietional Masonic law . "