Masonic Jurisprudence.

With regard to this Article , it is not unusual for the Grand Treasurer to stale , when a more than usually urgent grant has been voted , that he will not wait for its confirmation before : paying it . Such statement is an admission that the Grand Treasurer pays the money at his own risk , and in the event of non-con lirmation or reduction he would be personally liable .

The inference from ail this is obvious . A motion for confirmation—in the eyes of the Constitutions—is not a motion of confidence in the accuracy of the Secretary ' s recollection . It o-ives an opportunit y for second thoughts to prevail . To non-confirm the election of Brother A to the Master ' s chair does

not deny the fact of such election having been made , but that in the interval brethren have come to the conclusion that they had better have someone else . A grant of ^ 30 is made to a widow by the Board ; , £ 20 is paid on account , and at the next meeting that particular grant is non-confirmed . The fact of the

orant having been made is not disputed . The non-confirmation means that in the interval the brethren have come to the conclusion that the ^ , ' 20 paid was quite sufficient . A new Article is proposed to be added to the Book of Constitutions , and secures a majority of votes in its favour . At the next Quarterly

Communication it is put for confirmation , and its rejection does not mean that in the opinion ol the meeting no such transaction took p lace , but that in the interval they have come to the conclusion that it is unnecessary . By parity of reasoning grants of money by p rivate lodges require confirmation to be valid .

Now , out ol the many and various transactions which go to make up lodge history , the Constitutions have selected three , v / .., the election of Master , grants of money , and alteration of laws , as to which it is stated an opportunity for second thoughts and possible reversal of opinion should be given .

Does the specific mention ol these three exclude all others ? When putting the minutes the Worshi pful . Master is not always precise in his language , lie has the choice of two p hrases . " Is it your opinion that , these minutes be confirmed , " or " Are these minutes a correct record . ¦ ' " When the : former question is put

it is a matter lor the whole lodge because the question really is "Do you approve of what look place ? " When putting the latter it is a matter of etiquette that only brethren " present at the meeting concerned shall vote , and bve-laws even , to that effect , have been passed as good b y the Grand Master . It seems to be an allowable inference from the Articles

quoted that the lormer question ( I . e ., Do you approve : . . . ) should only be put when ( he question is one of tlv : three alread y referred to . Any question as to the rest of the * minutes is a

question as to whether the Secretary has presented a correct account , and in determining such a matter , which is practicall y a personal one between the Secretary and the brother objecting , it is absurd for brethren not present at the time to intervene .

I his view gathers weight when one considers what a deadlock might arise if tin : power of altering an opinion once expressed were to appl y to every transaction of the lodge . For instance , the writer has , in a lormer article , referred to the

nonconlirmation of that portion ol the minutes which recorded the black-balling of a candidate for initiation . Two black balls out of 40 cast were sufficient to reject him , but iq votes at the next meeting were insufficient to prevent him coming back as a candidate completel y whitewashed . The action of the lodge was

never officiall y called in question , and it is to be regretted an appeal was not laid . Instances could be adduced b y the score to show what a rcductio ad absitntum would result , were the : confirmation of the minutes to impl y unlimited power of revision of proceedings .

H certain things are disapproved of , there is a proper way ' of securing due re-consideration . A special motion may be made for the rescission of a resolution and , if carried , would have far more wei ght than , if accomplished b y the register of a motion for confirmation of the minutes .

A case came under the writer ' s notice and has already been referred to in which that part of the minutes recording " the 'icceplanco of a brother ' s resignation " was not confirmed and the brother was dunned for accumulated dues . On appeal tin

action ol the lod ge was deemed unconstitutional—but "" fortunatel y , in giving jiulgmenK nothing was said in Grand Lod ge as to the propriety of the p hrase " accepting , " a resi gnation .

Oliver p . 202 , in speaking of the importance of the Secretary recording every transaction—( in which we are : quite at one with him ) , goes on to say that the neglect of the Secretary to record a resignation would of course involve the absence : of confirmation , ; i 'id lead to endless dispute's . But the reference to " the absence :

c , r confirmation" as a factor in the resulting disputes , is quite j-uperlluous , as the fact of a resignation does not depend on a conciliation . The absence of the record from the ; minute : book Miows carelessness , but if delivery of the resignation could be proved , even that would not bar it .

Masonic Jurisprudence.

Another point alluded to b y Oliver is worth consideration . Confirmation ol minutes does not render a transaction lawful which is not so otherwise :. If a brother is elected to the chair of K . S . who has not served 12 months as a Warden , the unanimous

confirmation of the minutes does not legalise what has occurred . Nor , if the minutes were non-confirmed on that ground , must it be supposed that ( he . non-conlirmalion established the illegality of what had previousl y occurred . The illegality is independent , entirely , of the minute book .

In those lodges in which a monthl y or quarterly financial statement is made , this is read out , and forms part of the : minutes of that meeting . If any question arises as to its correctness , or if it be felt that there is need for reconsideration , this can all be done separately .

Acceptance of minutes in which such occurred would only mean acceptance of the historic fact that such statement formed part of the business . The items of the balance-sheet , or the balance-sheet as a whole , mi g ht' be put separately . The silence of the Constitutions , however , forms an appeal to the good sense of brethren .

It is specificall y declared that there are three classes of question , to wit , the election of Master , alteration , formation , or suspension of laws and regulations , and financial matters , the

importance of which is such that there should be an opportunity for reconsideration , and that the voice of the lodge should be heard a second time before such matters are treated as finall y accomplished .

Whether such opportunities should be given with regard to other matters , or whether in every other case confirmation or otherwise should have reference only to the correctness of the record , must be left to common s * nse , and common sense tells us that if an opposite view be taken , there is no finality .

the Constitutions dictate the procedure to be followed when there is a non-confirmation of the subjects named . Would not appropriate procedure have : been laid down il non-confirmation had the more : extended meaning ? Following the guidance of the Constitutions , the : Worshi pful

Master will first submit the minutes as a question of correct record . If any portion of them is challenged , he will satisf y himself whether or not that portion may be considered to be referred to in the Articles we have been quoting . If not , he

will not allow them to be challenged except on the ground of inaccuracy of record . If he feel that it is , he will confirm the minutes with a saving clause and a subsequent and separate decision may then be arrived at .

In these remarks we make the allowable assumption that a course of procedure laid down in the : Constitutions for the guidance of Grand Lodge applies , mat alls iiiii / aiidls , to Provincial Grand and private lodges , 'inless the contrary is stated or can be inferred .

Board Of Benevolence.

BOARD OF BENEVOLENCE .

The monthly meeting of the Board of Benevolence was held on Wednesday evening at Freemasons' Hall . In the absence of Bro . James Henry Matthews , President , the Chair of President was occupied by Bro . Dwid Dixon Mercer , P . G . P ., Senior Vice-President . The chair of Senior-Vice

President was laken by Bro . Henry Garrod , P . G . P .. Junior Vice-President , and the chair of Junior Vice-President by Bro . Felix Kite , G . P . B-o . William Lake , Asst . G . Sec , Bro . William Dodd , Bro . G . S . Recknel ) , and Bro . Henry Sadler , G . Tyler , represented ths official depirtnent ; and he other brethren present

were—Bros . James Boulton , G . E . Blunt , W . Fisher , Charles J . R . Tijou , James Block , F . VV . Hancock , S . J . Motley , R . W . Kerr , Thomas Minstrr . il , \ V . Kipps , Henry A . Tobias , S . H . Gutiisr . hmidt , W . M . Byw . eter , ] lines Ellinsrer , Ch ; . r ; es Henry Stone , W . M . Stiles S . Pelter , Lorenzo Faull , \ V . RaddiflV , John Nixon , J . ti . Doncaster , George R . Langley , W . H . Ruwell , \ V . F . Chtceman , Harold I . Harper , James Robert W . Little , F . Purkiss , Thoims

Bore , J . W . Burgess , J . M . Shields , H . Massey , Horace T . Bonner , Arthur Williams , Charles Lacey , A . G . Wedmore , C . Wilfred Bl inch , rd , H . J . Gab ' , T . C . Dyer , T . j . Thompson , W . T . Thompson , G . E . Hamilton , Arthur Cox , F . W . Golby , A . E . Hall'hide , VV . M . Julmson , V \ . J . Woodward , F . L . Palmer , E . W . Pillinger , John Hoey , C . J . Grove-, J . Campbell , Alfred J . Hext ' er , W . Smith , and K . H . Lewis .

The brethren first confirmed recommendations to the Grand Master , made at the September melting , to , the amount cf . £ 110 . The new list contained the names of . 15 petitioners , who were ; q lalilied through lodges in the London district , and at St . Helen ' s ( banc ) , R .-unsg . ite , Rawal Piodi , Wakefield , Keighley , Newfoundland , Byculla , Rie'kmansworth , Wythe , Chodlon-cum-Hardy , Grand Lodge ( Scotland ) , Wigan , Casllemain ( Victoria ) , Windsor , Hastings , Germiston ( Transvaal ) ( two ) , Bombay ,

Umballa , East Stonehouse , New South Wales , and Grand Lodge ( Vic-Icria ) . Three of these were dismissed , and four were deferred . The remainder ( 3 8 ) were relieved , or recommended to be relieved , to the amount of £ 1015 . One petitioner was recommended to Grand Lodge for £ 75 and two were recommend-d for £ 50 each . The Grand Master was asked to approve of grants of £ 40 in Uve instances " , and £ y > in 11 cases . Thi teen grants were made ot £ 20 each four of £ iu each , and th : ca ot •A ... u .