Grand Lodge Decisions.

the arcbeologist , as so many of them have bsen upset since , nor was Grand Lodge in those days so ably advised as it is to-day . " The oldjr decisions are not without value even where they have since b ~ en upset , as they often show the principles on which the subsequent decisions , or changes of the Constitutions are founded , and allowing for the changes in the laws , I question whether so many decisions have been upset as Bro . Lawrence seems to think . Many of these earlier decisions are very valuable precedents and acted on

to this day . The statement that Grand Lodge was not so ably advised in those days as it is at present is rather startling to those who have closely studied the proceedings of the last io years , and , without in any degree disparaging the skill and ability of those who now advise Grand Lodge , I fay , without hesitation , that one cannot read carefully the old proceedings without being impressed with the feeling thit "There were giants in the earth in those days . "

Bro . Lawrence divides his work into three heads , the first as to the prerogatives and powers of Grand Lodge , the second as to resignations and exclusions , the third as to offences against Masonic discipline . This classification is no doubt useful as far as it goes , but for ready reference , a classification following more closely the divisions of the Book of Constitutions would , to my mind , have been more generally useful and rendered the work more helpful as a handbook eluc datory of that Book .

The decisions and resolutions digest r d cover a period of more than 25 years , but unfortunately the digest is by no means complete or correct . For instance , in the index under the head of " Recognition" a > e references to Nova Scotia , New South VVales , and the Grand Orient . On seeking to verify these , I find on page 3 , that the new Grand Lodge cf Nova Scotia was recognised in September , 1 S 6 9 .

This is correct and it is a valuable note , as the proceedings of Grand Lodge on that occasion show what is the proper and correct way of recognising a new Grand Lodge . Bro . Melntyre , the then Grand Registrar , stated he was commanded by the M . W . G . M . to propose a resolution to recognise , and after explaining the circumstances and the request for recognition as an independent Grand Lodge and that the lodges might be permitted to retain their warrants as memorials , he moved " That the independence of the

Grand Lodge of Nova Scotia be recognised and that the lodges holding warrants under the Grand Lodge of England be permitted to retain their warrants as memorials of their parent Grand Lodge , " and this motion , after debate , was put to the vote and carried . On referring to the paragraphs as to New South Wales , however , I lind , on page 11 , that "The Grand Lodge of New South Wales was denied recognition . " No date is given lo this ; which was in December , 1 S 91 .

Bro . Lawrence goes on to say— " This is a regular procedure of Grand Lodge , and simply means thu the Bidy styling itself the Grand Lodge , is not yet , in their opinion , sufficiently representative of Masonic feeling in the District concerned to warrant recognition as an independent body . It does not imply any censure of the body making the application . " This last sentence may be true to some extent , but the effect of the refusal leaves the

" self-sty led Grand Lodge " an unrecognised body , and its lodges clandestine lodges , and those owning its authority cannot be received as visitors in regular lodges , nor can its lodges be visited by brethren owning allegiance to the GrandLodge of England without such brethren subjecting themselves to penalties under Art 204 . A careful perusal of the debate on this occasion leaves on my mind the impression that a strong censure was implied in that particular case ; and as a matter of fact , th ' s Grand Lodge of

New South Wales never succeeded in gaining recognition . The reference on page 17 , is to an appeal in the case cf the Victoria Lodge , at Ashfield , in New South Wales , when it was held that it was illegal to discuss in open lodge the question of secession to an unrecognised body . This was in June , 1885 , not September , 18 S 7 , as quoted . Whilst noticing this appeal , it is rather strange that Bro . Lawrence does not notice the similar decision as to discussion in a District Grand Lodge , in Pigott ' s Appeal ( also an New South Wales case ) , in September , 1885 .

As to the Grand Orient of France , the reference on page 25 , only alludes to the deprivation of Bro . Sir Robert Stout of his Grand Ra 1 k for obtaining a warrant from the Grand Orient of France , the issuing of such warrant being held to be an invasion of British Masonic Territory . The offence was aggravated by the fact that the invading body , even if not altogether

irregular and unrecognised , is at least not in full Masonic Union with us , It is curious that Bro . Lawrence makes no allusion to the very important resolutions of Grand Lodge , in March , 1 S 7 S , which practically severed fraternal relations with the Grand Orient of France on account of its having become an un-Masonic body by removing from its Constitutions those paragraphs which asserted a belief in the existence of T . G . A . O . T . U ,

And no notice seems to betaken ofthe recognition of other important bodies—the Grand Lodgeof New Brunswick ( March , 1870 ) , ( he Grand Lodge of South Australia ( June , 1 K 85 ) , United Grand Lodge of New South Wales ( December , 1888 ) , the Grand Lodge of Victoria ( June , 18 S 9 ) , and the Grand Lodge of Tasmania ( September , 1890 ) , or of the refusal to recognise the body styling itself the Grand Lodge of New Zealand ( September , 180 , 0 ) . However , Bro . Lawrence does not claim to have made a cnmhli le digest cAall

the resolutions of Grand Lodge during the period , so he may have considered the Nova Scotia precedent sufficient as showing the cou'seupon which Grand Lodge proceeds in recognising new Bodies . The present muddle as to the position ofthe Grand Lodge cf New Zealand , arising from the proper course being departed from , and the conflict of opinion as to whether that Body is now recognised or not shows the necessity of a ready reference to all the cases where recognition has been either granted or withheld .

Bro . Lawrence has surely made a little mistake in not adhering somewhat more closely to the chronological order , which is a matter of some importance , bearing in mind the great change in the Book of Constitutions in 1 SS 4 . In consideiing the speeches and decisions on appeals it is of no little consequence which Book of Constitutions was in force at the time .

And not only the Constitutions , for often questions are governed to some extent by previous decisions . A striking instance of this is afforded by the series of decisions on the Resignation question , which our brother deems sufficiently important to make his second heading . It will be seen by reference to pp . 32 to 3 8 that the order of the decisions quoted is

March , 18 94 ; December , 1894 ; December , 1875 ; June , 1874 ; December , 1879 ; and December , 1 S 87 . There seems to be some little confusion as to the first three of these dates , which are apparently March , 18 95 , December , iSSg , and June , 1 S 75 , and Bro . Lawrence seems to have overlooked December , 18 7 6 , which is rather an important case . These cases should be carefully considered in strict chronological order , when much of their

Grand Lodge Decisions.

apparent inconsistency will be found to be apparent only , especially if read wilh the earlier case decided in September , _ i 863 , which is , of course , antecedent to the period covered by 8-0 . Lawrence ' s work . This , hovever , is a matter which—as also the inaccuracies in dates , & c . —can be easily remedied in the event of a second edition being printed ( which it is to be hoped will soon be the case , ) , when doubtless Bro . Lawrence will also amend his note on the " Cumbrian case , " which is ( ihe more

unfortunately , as the matter is still sub j ml ice ) a very inaccurate one as to the facts . He has , I believe , hit the blot in stating that the loyal lodges where a new Grand Lodge is formed ( loyal minorities he calls them , ) are regarded as a frightful nuisance—cf course , he means by what he justly calls a " ring . " He is quite wrong , however , in saying " Grand Lodge will not put itself out of the way to prevent such minority being swallowed up by the local Grand Lodge ! " Such , at least , has not hitherto been the case , as witness the three lodges at Montreal .

Surely B o . Lawrence must have overlooked , or he would have quoted , the withdrawal of the patent from the representative of Grand Lodge at the Grand Lodge of Illinois in March , 18 S 6 , and the very clear exolanation of the facts , and the true position of the Grand Lodge to the loyal lodges , which was given by the late Bro . Brackstone Baker in resigning his position

as representative of the Grand Lodge of Illinois ! It is a noteworthy speech , and the more so on account of his drawing attention to the one outstanding English lodge in Nova Scotia , and the friendly terms on which that lodge worked with the local Grand Lodge . Since then , however , the Grand Lodges of England ind Illinois have , happily , again exchanged representatives .

Bro . Lawrence s note in which he speaks of a " ring " will be found on page 6 , where he quotes an ex-President of the Board of Gtneral Pjrpo ; es as saying : " There are circumstances which may justify the Board driving a coach and six through the Constitutions , " and approves of the spirit of Grand Lodge in disagreeing with such an idea at ths earliest possible moment .

It is much to be regretted that a few more brethren of Bro . Lawrence ' s calibre and outspoken fearlessness are not amongst the regular attendants at Grand Lodge . We might then hope to see the reports of the B > ard of General Purposes more as they used to be , stating the work the B oard had done and the decisions they had arrived at , so that the Craft at large mi ght have the benefit of knowing the views taken at head-quarters on questions arising upon the laws , and so avoid breaches of disci pline which are now often committed through pure inadvertence .

Tne references to dates need careful revision throughout ; and there are others of his notes which , if space permitted , I should like to discuss with him in a friendly way , as in several cases he seems to entirely mistake the ground j of a decision . To take one example , which , like the omission of the severing fraternal relation with the Grand Orient of France , is a most extraordinary one for Bro . Lawrence to make a mistake in . On p . 47 , under date March , 1 S 88 ,

will be found an allusion to a brother s appeal against his expulsion from Freemasonry b y the District Grand Lodge for un-Masonic conduct in deserting his wife and children and committing adultery . Bro . Lawrence states that the " Appeal was allowed on the ground that the two offences named had not , as far as was seen , been committed to the prejudice of any other Freemason , and therefore there was no Masonic jurisdiction . " Th s is totally inaccurate . In the first place , nothing will be found in the decision or debate as to " the prejudice of any other Freemason . "

It is true that from the speech of the Grand Registrar , as reported , he was understood to [ say that immorality was outside Masonic jurisdiction ; but at the next meeting of Grand Lodge the Grand Registrar brought up the subject and totally disclaimed such a daetrine , explaining thit the

ground of dismissal of the appeal was the fact of the offences charged being at the time the subject of investigation by the legal tribunals of the country , and that whilst the matter was so suit ju : ii < -e the Masonic courts must decline to interfere , lest they shoald prejudice ths brothar . ( Jj ) e , 1888 ) .

There are other errors of this kind , but I should be sorry to seem to criticise in a captious spirit a work which , with all its faults , must bj admitted to be the most valuable contribution to the subject which we have had since Dr . Oliver ' s much-abused , but still useful , " M isonie Jurisprudence . " LEX SCRIPTA .

The New Christ's Hospital.

THE NEW CHRIST'S HOSPITAL .

MASONIC CEREMONY BY H . R . H . THE PRINCE OF WALES , M . W . GRAND MASTER ,

The first stone of the new buildings about to be erected in the neighbourhood of Horsham for the accommodation of the pupils of Christ ' s Hospital was laid , with full Masonic ceremonial , by the Prince of Wales , M . VV . G . Master , en Saturday , the 23 rd instant—the anniversary of the birth of its founder , the boy-King Edward VI ., of pious memory . There was , of

course , a large attendance of those specially connected with the administration of , or interested in , the welfare of this ancient foundation , while Horsham itself and the district round about firm ' shed a very numerous contingent of visitors , all eager to witness so unusual and , at the sane tim ; , so gorgeous a spectacle . The boys , too , from the London school , and the boys and girls from Hertford , with their masters and matrons , were present .

The Prince , who was accompanied by thi Duke of Cambridge , who has been President of the Institution for over 40 years , travelled by special train from the Victoria Station of the London Brighton and South Coast Railway , and , on his arrival at the Horsham Station , was received by Lord Henry

Neville , Sir Arthur Otway , and Bro . Gerald Loder , M . P ., directors , Sir Allen Sarle , the general manager of the railway , and the High Sheriff , and here , too , he graciously received an address of welcome from the Urban Council , to which his Royal Highness was pleased to make the following reply :

"I have great pleasure in complying with the wish tbat you have been good enough to express that I would receive an address to-day from ths Urban District Council of Horsham . I am confident your town fully