PROJECTED GRAND LODGE OF NEW ZEALAND.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 916, 20 September 1889, Page 15

PROJECTED GRAND LODGE OF NEW ZEALAND.

The following circular, which emanates from the Freemasons of Dunedin, will, we have no doubt, be read with interest by all Masons who are directly or indirectly concerned with the attempt now being made to establish a Grand Lodge of Freemasonry in New Zealand.- We are given to understand, moreover, that active steps are about to be taken by the dissentients to the Grand Lodge movement which will be of such a character as to render the recognition of a Grand Lodge of New Zealand by the Grand Lodges of England, Ireland and Scotland next to an impossibility. Dear Sirs and Brethren, —We, the undersigned Masters and Past-Masters of Lodges in Dunedin, desire respectfully to call attention to the position of the Grand Lodge question so far as this portion of New Zealand is concerned ; and in view of the latest manifesto cf the Wellington Branch of the Union, calling on the Lodges again to nominate delegates to attend a convention at Wellington on the 11th instant, for the purpose of proclaiming a Grand Lodge for New Zealand, we earnestly urge you to defer making such appointment until the whole of the questions bearing on the subject have been fully sifted as to the feasibility of working a Grand Lodge, as, should the matter be pushed to extremes, we feel assured that under the present want of unanimity on the subject it will end in disunion and discord instead of union arid harmony, and in having four Grand Lodges instead of three. We the more confidently ask you to defer taking any steps at present, as, though many of us are in favour of a Grand Lodge or Grand Lodges for New Zealand, we are not satisfied that the proper steps are being taken for their establishment, or that the questions of the probability of their adaptability under present circumstances have been fully and finally settled. That the brethren here fully appreciate the difficulties surrounding the establishment of a Grand Lodge, or Lodges, is evidenced by the fact that at a large and representative meeting of the city and suburban lodges, about 150 being present, held on the 19th July, after a lengthy discussion it was almost unanimously carried that it be remitted to a committee composed of representatives of the three constitutions, to discuss the question in all its bearings, and report the result to a future meeting. Until this committee has completed its labours and reported the result, we consider it would be imprudent on the part of the Lodges to take any action in the matter. We would further point out that the four Lodges holding under the Scotch Constitution are decidedly opposed to the movement as promulgated by the Wellington Union. Trie Irish Lodge is also opposed ; whilst the three English Lodges, two of which were in support of the movement, and pushing it very energetically, have given way, and are in unison in regard to waiting the decision of the Joint Committee. It was a noticeable feature that at the meeting held in Wellington early in August, Otago Avas almost unrepresented. We belieA r e Ave are correct in stating that the majority of the Joint Committee for Dunedin do not vieAV the basis of union, as issued by the Wellington Union, as any solution of the difficulties surrounding the questions at issue. It bears evidence that it is more especially draAvn. Avith a vieAV to gain the suffrages of the Lodge's than an attempt to deal with the difficulties of the situation. Should the Grand Lodge of New Zealand be proclaimed under the existing state of feeling, Ave fear it will end in generating much cf the bitter feeling Avhich existed a few years ago in NeAv South Wales and Victoria, OAving to the nori-recognition of those Grand Lodges by the Grand Lodges in Britain. And Ave are fully persuaded that these Grand Lodges will not recognise any Grand Lodge coming into existence in the face of so strong an opposition as at present exists in New Zealand. • It is observable that the Wellington branch of the Union in issuing its basis of union has not attempted to grappde Avith the difficulties pf the monetary phase of

the question, but has left it that it may mean anything or nothing. The ten per cent levy specified, is, according to it, for charitable purposes only, while the general levy “is not to be increased,” according to the articles of union, “ above the average amount noAV contributed by Lodges toAvard the Government of the Craft, Avithout the consent of two-tliirds of the Lodges on the roll.” If the revenue-of Grand Lodge is not sufficient to meet its expenditure, lioav is the deficiency to be raised ? Is anyone sanguine or foolish enough to believe that L4OO, the probable amount named, will cover its annual expenses ? If the Grand Lodge is to be peripatetic, Avith 37 officers, 30 of Avhich must necessarily travel every time it holds its sittings, Avhat Avill be the cost of its administration ? Is it reasonable to expect that officers can or will pay their oivn tr.iveiling expenses when they may have to travel from one end of New Zealand to the other ? It must necessitate one of things —either there A\ r ill not be a full complement of officers and representatives- at its communications conversant with its previous proceedings, or that they must be held in vqrious centres with the local officers and representatives not well up in the duties they have to perform, and the control of the whole craft will therefore be virtually placed in the hands of a very few of the executive officers. We venture to predict that within a year or eighteen months it will be found to be far more expedient to do away with a paripatetic Grand Lodge, or the expense will be such that the lodges will not be able to meet its demands, It is a noticeable feature that in estimating the probable expenses of the Grand Lodge that the Wellington Union has made the mistake of selecting the smallest Grand Lodge in the Australian colonies. To compare the probable expense of working a Grand Lodge in New Zealand with the expense of working the Grand Lodge of South Australia is so manifestly absurd as scarcely to be worth arguing. . We do not hesitate to say that it is not more difficult to work the Grand Lodge of South Australia than the districts of Otago, Southland, and New Zealand South, while the number of Lodges on its roll is not so great, and we venture to assert that these districts could be easily governed as a Grand Lodge for a considerably less sum. But there cannot possibly be any comparison between the difficulty and cost of governing these districts or the Grand Lodge of South Australia, and the difficultyand cost of a Grand Lodge embracing the whole of New Zealand. What the cost of administeririg the Grand Lodges of New South Wales and Victoria are we are not at present aware, but we have been credibly informed that the salary of the Grand Secretary of Victoria is LfiOO per annum. We candidly confess. however, that at the present time we look upon the difficulty of governing the New Zealand lodges from any one centre as nearly as difficult as to attempt the government of the whole of the lodges in Australia from one centre. We also venture to state that avc vury. much question the assertion that a majority of the lodges in New Zealand are in favour of projecting the intended Grand Lodge. The E.C. Lodges in Auckland are very strongly against, it, and-the lodges in Westland, Canterbury and Otago are also- in a similar position. So that the only sections of the lodges in favour to any great extent are the Scotch lodges

in the North Island and the E.C. Lodges in the Wellington districts. One of tlie most serious aspects ©f the position, henvever, is that should the projected Grand Lodge be launched into existence, the Lodges giving in their adherence to' it cannot possibly recede from its control, whatever may be its edicts or its imposts. There can be no appeal from its decisions, as they will be final and supreme. It therefore behov r es the officers and members of every lodge to weigh well everything for or against the movement before throwing in their lot with it. There should be no hasty decisions come to on the matter. Whether it be one Grand Lodge, two Grand Lodges, Federal Grand Lodges, or to remain as we are, are questions which cannot be harmed by prolonging discussion. If the result be unanimity of opinion and harmony of purpose, such result were well attained. Trusting that the matter will receive the most serious consideration of your lodge before any definite course is taken, --We are, dear sirs and brethren, fraternally yours, W. N, Basstian, R.W.M., 417, S,C. ; J. S. Nugent, R.W.M., 432, S.C. ; D. Wishart, W.M., 468, 1,0. ; Robert Sinclair, R.W.M., 477, S.C. ; T. S. Jeffery, R.W.M., 662, S.C. ; W, Jeffrey, P.M., 432, S.C. ; D. Cherrie, P.M., 432, S.C. ; A. Barrett, P.M., 468, I.C. ; David A. McNicol, P.M., 468,1.0, j George Raffils, P.M., 417, S.C. ; William Nees, P.M,, 417, S.C. ; Chas. E, Thompson, P.M., 468, I.C. ; James Farquharson, P.M., 662, -3.0, ; Robert Bamfield, P.M., 884, E,C, ; Charles Braid, P.M., 931, E.C. ; John Colder, P.M., 432, S.C.; C. MacandreAV, P.M,, 477, S.C. ; Henry Neill, P.M.', 417, S.C. ; G. H, Marsden, P.M,, 931, E.C. ; T. H. Shadwell, P.M., 468, I.C.