MASONIC.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVII, Issue 8424, 27 November 1890, Page 3

MASONIC.

THE POWER OF A MINORITY TO RETAIN A CHARTER. The following communication, received by the Acting D.G.M. of Canterbury, E.C., Brother Cunningham, from tho Grand Secretary of England, in reference to the power of a minority of a lodge to retain the Charter when a majority has decided to transfer tho allegiance of the lodge to another Constitution, has been made public here:— Grand Secretary's Office, Freemasons'.Hall, Great Queen-street, London, W.C., 19th July, 1890. Brother P. Cunningham, D.D.G. Master-in-Charge, Canterbury, New Zealand. Dear Sir and Brother, —I am in receipt of your, letters of l(.ith and 23rd May, and of your telegram of the 19th of the same month, on the subject of the recent movement in 'New Zealand for the formation of a Grand Lodge in that colony. In your telegram you ask for a reply by cable to certain queries. It would, however, be impracticable to give such replies satisfactorily, but having just at the same time received the resignation of Brother Thomson as your District Grand Master, 1 telegraphed its acceptance as soon as the recent break in the cable permitted, and this I understand to be about the most pressing point. I will now reply to your other queries : 1. Brethren who leave the English Constitution and take part in the new body have ipso facto placed themselves under Art. 204, Book of Constitutions, so long as the new body remains unrecognised by our Grand Lodge, and therefore cannot be received as visitors in any English lodge. 2. This question as to the majority taking the lodge over hits already twice been answered to the D.G. Master of Wellington, who has been informed that the Grand Registrar, as the legal adviser of the Grand Lodge, has officially ruled that Article 219 of the Book of Constitutions was framed for domestic purposes, and was never intended to meet the case of a lodge severing its allegiance from its mother Grand Lodge. Consequently, then, a majority can take the lodge over. 1 may mention that this view was taken in the recent Australian Grand Lodge movements, and was officially confirmed by our Colonial Board. The question of the distribution and allotment of the funds of private Lodges and of District Grand Lodges under the circumstances referred to is one which the Grand Lodge has no power to decide. These funds and other property do not belong to the Grand Lodge, but to the local bodies, and with them must rest the onus of dealing with them on an exceptional occasion as they may think right ana proper. _ Further, I may mention that an application has been received from the so-called Grand Lodge of New Zealand for recognition, which will be laid before the Grand Lodge on the 3rd September next. Of course, I cannot say .what the decision will then be, but looking at the relative numbers and other circumstances, the result is at all events verydoubtful.—l remain, yours, etc. Suadwjsu. H. CldSttKE, Col., U.S.