A few years ago British Telecom mounted a massive advertising campaign using the slogan “It’s good to talk”. That slogan encapsulates the reasons for holding the major meeting of European Grand Masters in London last November. For the first time ever, senior representatives of the forty-four regular Grand Lodges in Europe came together to talk. The Pro Grand Master invited me to chair the formal sessions to enable him to be free to make the opening address and take part in the comments and discussions.
     I am not an expert in international Masonic relations and the prospect of a relatively new Deputy Grand Master chairing a discussion between, potentially, forty-four experienced Grand Masters and their Grand Secretaries was not without its anxieties!
     Add to that the ill–informed rumours appearing in masonic chat rooms and discussion groups on the internet as to what was supposed to be happening, and the ‘major decisions’ that were reputedly to be taken at the meeting, and I could have been in a very ‘hot seat’.
     In the event, it proved to be a fascinating and very happy gathering. Talk we certainly did. The reception and dinner hosted by our Grand Master, HRH The Duke of Kent, was a great icebreaker. Conversations flowed and there was no rush to leave after the meal was over. I understand that some of the discussions continued late into the night at the hotel in which the delegates were staying.
     The ‘buzz’ continued when we assembled for coffee the next morning. The formal session began quietly. The Pro Grand Master, assisted by the Grand Masters of Ireland and Scotland, laid out the Home Grand Lodges’ views on regularity, recognition and Freemasonry’s role in society.
     The timetable allowed for questions from the floor after the main speeches, but as no one rose to comment or ask questions on what had been said, I became optimistic that I might have an easy day!

GRAND LODGE’S JURISDICTION

After a short coffee break, discussion certainly did arise, but in a masonic and harmonious fashion. Four particular topics stood out. First, there was the question of Freemasonry’s role in society.
     The Home Grand Lodges had made the point that Freemasonry per se had no role in society. Rather it was the individual, imbued with the principles of Freemasonry, who could and should have an effect. They firmly believed that one of the great strengths of Freemasonry is that it stands above politics and sectarian interests.
     One or two Grand Masters wondered if we were too wide in our definitions of religious and political subjects. They believed that some of what we saw as being religious/political matters were, in fact, moral or ethical problems which should be discussed and commented on by Freemasons.
     Secondly, the question of sovereignty brought different definitions. The Home Grand Lodges see sovereignty as a Grand Lodge having sole authority over its constituent lodges and members, wherever they are geographically located.
     A minority saw sovereignty in terms of territorial exclusivity, i.e., one regular Grand Lodge per country or territory, and wanted to see it added to the Basic Principles for Grand Lodge Recognition.
     The Home Grand Lodges believed that it was a matter for mutual consent.
     They have shared territory in many parts of the world for generations, and in a number of those areas now share it with a national Grand Lodge. In the USA, in many of the individual States, a State Grand Lodge happily shares its territory with a Prince Hall Grand Lodge, to the mutual benefit of both.
     The last two major topics were interlinked. It was suggested that there should be a Standing Conference of European Grand Masters, or some form of high level European Masonic Forum, meeting annually with a permanent secretariat, and having attached to it a Commission for Information on Recognitions.
     The general consensus was that neither was necessary. Questions were raised as to what functions they could perform, bearing in mind that each Grand Lodge is sovereign and no conference, or other gathering, could make decisions binding on the whole of Europe, and how would it be financed.

SUPPORT FOR DIVERSITY

There was also a concern that a supranational body might attempt to bring about standardisation. One of the major things that came out of the discussions, both formal and informal, was that whilst we all follow the same basic principles and tenets, there is a wonderful diversity of ritual, ceremonial and other customs and practices in European Freemasonry.
     There was certainly a consensus that we should celebrate and enjoy that diversity and not allow it to be diluted in any way. Was the meeting a success? That I think is a question for others to answer.
     Certainly, as hosts, I think we achieved our aim of bringing people together and giving them an opportunity to express their views.
     I think that all who took part have a better understanding of the dynamics of European Freemasonry, made new friends and established contacts useful for the future of their Grand Lodges.
     If a desire to repeat an event is a measure, then it was a success as all would like to meet again in two or three year’s time.

For the important opening address by Lord Northampton, refer to the UGLE website: www.ugle.org.uk