THE MASONIC GRAND LODGE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXI, Issue 277, 24 November 1890, Page 4

THE MASONIC GRAND LODGE.

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—Hl3 Excellency the Governor has thought fib to addrea3 a letter to the Masters of Lodges, holding under the English, Irish ana Scotch Constitutions ixi this colony, a copy of which aDpeared in your issue of the 18th inst. The eentimonte oxpressed in the first part of the letter are such as so eminent a Mason a% Lord Onslow might be expected to give utterance to ; and the position assumed by fcho Grand Lodge of England in reference to the Grand Lodge of Nβ* Zealand is correctly enough stated for the purpose in view. He saye," " that the Grand Lodge of England is ready to recognise independent constitutions in the colonies where an overwhelming preponderance of opinion exists in favour of Masonic autonomy, but not where a minority or a bare majority only of Masons put forward such a claim." Lord Onslow furbher states that " The body calling itsell the Grand Lodge of Nbw Zealand claim to have secured 33 Lodges holding: under the English Constitution." The Governor, however, forgets to say that there are 54 English Lodges in the colony opposed to severing the bonds which unite them to their mother Grand Lodge, nor that of 153 Lodges ia the colony, not more than 60 are in favour of erecting a Grand Lodge in New Zealand. Either the Governor ia not aware of the exact position in the relative strength of the two sections of the Craft, or he has purposely been misinformed. If the first, he has been hasty in hie action, and before writing such a circular should have been better informed; if the latter, bis statement of the case is, to say the least, disingenuous on the part of all concerned. Neither is Lord Onslow to be congratulated upon the argument of his epistle, his logic, or his assumption, thab it is the duty " of the Freemasons of New Zealand to bring about unanimity." Is it nob-rather the duty of the minority to recede from the position they have taken up and by so doing bring back the unanimity that formerly existed ?_ Is it nob aleo contrary to all constitutional usage and practice, for a speaker or an umpire to side with a minority, or the disturbers of a constitutional state of things, bub rather to oppose innovations? And who should know better than the Conetifrational Govornor of a coleny ? Would it nob therefore have been more in keeping with His Excellency's loyalty, his knowledge, and Masonic duty to have said to the 'eeceders, "You hare not a majority, you are in a hopeless minority; ib is your place to recede from the position you have taken HO and not by your obstinacy and disloyalty, to further disturb the harmony of l-the Craffc in this colony." The quotations •from Lord Onsloir's circular will show how ifaultv hie logic is, for on one hand ho says Ithe Grand Lodge of England will only Recognise where there is an " overwhelming preponderance of opinion in favour of Masonic autonomy," and on the other that ionly 33 lodges of 6b* Snglish Honetabutasta

own "allegiance to the so-called Grand Lodge of New Zealand." The reasoning is all the more faulty when it is stated that there are at most not 60 seceding lodges out of the 153 lodges in the colony. The impropriety of the Governor interfering will be the more apparent when it is stated that neither the Grand LodgS3 of Ireland nor Scotland have recognised the New Zealand movement, nor have the District or Provincial Grand Masters in the colony approved of the step taken by His Excellency. Were it not thab it might smack of disloyalty, it might be aaid that the circular ia a breach of Masonic etiquette, of pood manners, and an intrusion, not to use a strong term, in that it stops in between the daughter lodges and their recognised heads in the colony ; and further, that_ it gives advice *not aekod for, a service seldom acknowledged with thanks. Tho exalted position of the writer makes his action all the more to be regretted, and while His Excellency may be credited for being influenced by the best of motives, none the less thd issue of the circular is mistitued,uncalledfor,andunwarrantedfrom a politic, Masonic, and constitutional point of view.—l am, etc., P.M., 689, E.C., and 348, I.C.