H.—l.

lodge the executive considered that some of the communications were of an offensive nature, and should not be answered. There is no doubt there was irritation on both sides. We conclude that as far as we are concerned this charge should be dismissed. /. Neglect to carry out Resolutions of Grand Lodge re Establishment of a Supreme Legislature-. We do not see how this can be a charge. If the executive have neglected to carry out the orders of Grand Lodge, the remedy lies with Grand Lodge. That body, however, has adopted the notion of the executive. J . Circulating Official Documents without Proper Authority. This is a charge which is rather surprising. A measure affecting friendly societies was brought before the House of Assembly, and Mr. Bold, without any authority, took upon himself to move in the matter (vide pp. 45 to 49 inclusive of the evidence). It is true, however, that he was afterv. ards upheld by his lodge. His complaint is that what he considered he had a right to do as a private member of the society in advancing a legislative enactment, the executive had no right to object to without the authority of the Grand Lodge. We do not agree with this contention. Moreover, by signing his letter to the Premier on this subject as "' E. Bold, Secretary of Pacific Lodge," he gave an official character to his communication which it otherwise would not have possessed. This charge is not sustained. K. Circulating officially Incorrect and Unauthorised Statements calculated to mislead and misrepresent. There was a clerical error in a letter written by District Grand Lodge to Mr. Bold with regard to some communication between the District Grand Secretary and the Registrar of Friendly Societies, and a difference of opinion between Mr. Bold and the D.G.S. touching a local in a newspaper authorised by the latter gentleman : but inasmuch as nothing eventuated therefrom, and no one was prejudiced thereby, we cannot understand why this charge should have been brought. L. Also mutilating and misrepresenting Communications transmitted through the Office of Grand Lodge. This charge seems to be the same as the last one, and we have no other remark to make with regard to it. We much regret ti.at this inquiry was considered necessary, a proceeding which, while provided for in the Friendly Societies Act, is one that hitherto has not been called into operation by any friendly society in New Zealand. We think that the fraternal spirit inculcated by all friendly societies, guided by a liberal interpretation of the rules and mutual forbearance, should have sufficient influence to confine disputes for settlement within the jurisdiction of their own appointed tribunals. It is within the powers of all friendly societies to frame or amend their rules in the direction of Ihe prevention of any injustice to lodges or individual members, and undoubtedly the aim of the societies is to make the settlement of any dispute under their registered rules final and without appeal to outside authority. This, we think, is the correct view of the matter, because it is the duty of all members of a society to treat each other with the utmost fairness, as also it is their duty to take care that the machinery provided in their rules for this purpose is ample and complete. A perusal of the rules of the U.A.O.D. for the North Island of New Zealand to our minds shows that in many respects they are in need of amendment, and that further rules are required to meet deficiencies, some of which have become apparent during this inquiry. We consider that the duties of District President relating to lodge audits could be well abolishedA portion of the duties expected from this officer in connection with lodge books at audits would be better discharged by a book-examiner appointed hj the District Grand Lodge, who, by his training, should be adapted to this special purpose. The presence of a D.P. at the lodge audit conveys no guarantee that the books are financially correct. We have evidence that the Arch Druid of the lodge has to be present to see that audits are properly conducted, so that the presence of the D.P. ought to be unnecessary, while the Grand Secretary by means of the lodge returns and other sources of information should be in the best position to report to Grand Lodge. However, should the office of D.P. be continued, we think that his status and powers should be better defined. We have only mentioned this as an illustration of the weakness of the present rules. We have not the time, nor does it come within the scope of our inquiry, to open up the question of a complete revision of the rules ; but we would like to take this opportunity of urging the order to endeavour to improve the existing system by which the board of management (or executive) transact business. We do not think the present method is the best which can be devised for effective government of the order between the meetings of the Grand Lodge. The members of the executive often reside at long distances apart, consequently executive business has to be conducted largely by correspondence, tending to delay questions which probably may require prompt attention. Besides, there cannot be that full consideration which would be gained by a personal interchange of views. We think it would be more satisfactory if the executive could meet periodically for this purpose, and not at such times as " it may think expedient.' . During the inquiry references were made to the financial affairs of two lodges, discrepancies or errors being; discovered which , should never have escaped the lodge auditor's investigation. We think this is a suitable opportunity to urge upon all lodges the desirability of availing themselves of the services of a public auditor for inspection and audit of the annual balance-sheets. We are aware that custom and the rules provide for this work being done by members of the lodges, whe may or may not be competent for the work : still we would urge that, in view of the large sums oi money accumulating, and the numerous securities requiring examination, the members should avail

11