Casual Acquaintance.

it soon becomes the talk of the Lodge , with the result that the offender finds himself in a worse position than he was before he joined the ranks of Freemasonry , for true Masons aro very quick in resenting any encroachment on the true principles of the Craft , and very severe against any one who practices Freemasonry with mercenary or other unworthy motives .

On the whole it may be said that Freemasonry is ol great service in placing its members on a familialfooting with each other , and it renders possible many little pleasures which would not be possible without it , a fact which is never better illustrated than when we discover a true Masonic spirit existing in a casual acquaintance .

Royal Masonic Institution For Boys.

ROYAL MASONIC INSTITUTION FOR BOYS .

THE July Quarterly Court was held on Friday , the 10 th instant , at Freemasons' Hall , Bro . Richard Eve Past Grand Treasurer in the chair . He was supported by Bros . G . Everett , W . A . Scurrah , H . Massey , J . Terry ,

W . Masters , P . R . W . Hedges , A . A . Pendlebury , W . H . Lee , N . Green , H . Sadler , W . Dodd , W . Lake , A . W . Bourne , G . Hutchinson , W . H . Saunders , G . Corbie , and J . M . McLeod ( Secretary ) .

After preliminaries , Bro . Scurrah , Vice Patron , 'moved that Law 89 , as follows , bo expunged : —

The Connoil ara authorised to appropriate a sum not exceeding £ 20 for tho benefit of any boy irho haa left the Institntion , if fonnd deserving , and if tbey are satisfied that there is a fair prospect of his obtaining by such aid the means of permanent provision . Bro . Scurrah said the laws had only recently been

revised , and the question might be asked , " Why go altering the laws so soon ? " But if they found a bye-law was unworkable and contradictory in itself , ifc was far better to deal with ifc at once , and alter it , than allow it to remain . Doubtless it was within the knowledge of all present that

under the old administration boys were granted £ 5 for the purchase of a suit of clothes if they were of good behaviour after leaving the Institution for a certain time , and thafc was done under this law . Under the present management this had been brought up repeatedly ; applications had been made

for an amount for a snifc of clothes for a boy , and it had been ruled that that did not come under this law , and it had been refused . As facts were always the best things to go upon , he would mention two cases that came , up in April last , which showed the contradictory nature of this

bye-law . In the first place , an application was brought up by the friends of a boy named Figgis , for a grant of £ 20 for his apprenticeship . It was considered that that came under this law ; thafc by his being apprenticed to a good trade there would be a fair prospect of his obtaining

a permanent income by-and-bye , and therefore this £ 20 was granted . Another application was brought up immediately after this , by a poor woman named Simpson , who applied for a certain amount of money towards her boy ' s maintenance . She stated sho had raked

up sufficient money to apprentice her boy , and he had been apprenticed to a certain trade , bufc she now found herself penniless , and wanted some aid to maintain the boy during hia apprenticeship . There was a long discussion , but the application was eventually refused , inasmuch as it

did nofc come under Law 89 . He ( Bro . Scurrah ) contended , however , that it came as much under Law 89 as the case of Figgis . Tho poor woman had begged , borrowed , or scraped the money up for the apprenticeship , and then afterwards she asked for something towards the

maintenance of the boy . Therefore , when tbey found such a contradictory bye-law as this , it was far better to do away with it , because it caused dissatisfaction among the friends of boys who left the Institution . One got the £ 20 , another was refused : and it was said , " There is favouritism

that boy was thought better than I . Because I want £ 5 or £ 10 to assist me I cannot get it . " He thought it was far better that this law shonld be expunged altogether rather than it should remain in its present state . Some

of the brethren might say— " If you expunge this law it ¦ will be impossible to assist a boy in future ; if they want a few pounds you cannot give it them . " He , on the contrary , said if you expunge this bye-law you can assist them , because in bye-law 45 it was stated , "No motion

Royal Masonic Institution For Boys.

for a new law , for tlie suspension , abrogration , or alteration of any existing law , or for a grant of money , or for an expenditure exceeding £ 500 , shall be made at a Quarterly or Special Conrt unless notice thereof shall havo been given at a previous Quarterly Court or Council , and

advertised by the Secretary in the Masonio papers . " By that law the Council had the power to grant any sum of money , provided it did not reach £ 500 , and if they found a boy leaving the Institution required some assistance , by that law they were empowered to grant him any sum of

money they liked . He could mention circumstances which bad occurred in which such things had been done . If they did away with this law they could , if so disposed , give any sum of money to a boy who had left the Institution . The two cases he had quoted that came before

the Council in April were proof of the badness of Law 89 . There were many others he could name , among them being one tbat the Secretary had read in the minutes of the Council meeting in May . Bro . Bourne seconded the motion . On totally different

grounds from Bro . Scurrah , he thought the law should be abolished . Bro . Masters thought the law in question determined the amount the Council should appropriate to a boy . If it was left to Law 45 , it was put in the hands of the Quarterly Court . The Chairman : No . The

cases cited by Bro . Scurrah showed the strength of tho rule . They also showed how much it might have been carried ont improperly in time past . They showed clearly , moreover , that the rale itself was as good as it could be . To his mind nothing was stronger than the reason Bro .

Scurrah had given , viz ., where a mother whose boy had been in the Institution applied for money to apprentice him for thepurpose of givinghim the means of further provision , the Council could give it . In a case where she applied for a suit of clothes , because tho boy was in a situation , ifc -was

no reason afc all . Bufc where tho power to give a sum not exceeding £ 20 for the purpose of making further provision was a proper ono there was no objection to it . It was a nonsensical proposition that the law should be abolished because in one case £ 5 for a suit of clothes had beeu

refused . Ho had been Chairman on several occasions when grants wore asked for , and he had pufc the question to the Committee whether they were satisfied there was a fair prospect of tho boy obtaining by the grant a means of permanent provision . In a case

where the boy was to be apprenticed it was a clear case ; but where he was already apprenticed and wanted a suit of clothes , it was not , for ho had got his means of permanent provision . Bro . Scurrah ' s calling attention to Law 45 was very strange , for there was no allusion whatever in

it to these grants . According to Bro . Scurrah , by Law 45 they could vote any sum of money up to £ 500 . The rule said they should not do it beyond £ 500 . It did not apply afc all ; ifc meant something else that they should do if legal ; it would be perfectly illegal fco vote £ 499 to a boy

or the friend of a boy ; it did nofc apply to this case . The rule stood on its own basis , and ifc was well drawn . Ifc had been misapplied in past times . There were cases in which they might give £ 10 for the benefit of a child to apprentice him , say , on board ship , if fche case was a deserving one .

Bro . Scurrah , with all due respect to the Chairman ' s ruling , insisted that the rule he had pointed out—45—distinctly said the Council could expend any sum of money

m any way or shape they pleased , but beyond £ 500 they must go to the Quarterly Court . The Chairman : And if we voted £ 499 to you we could do it ? Brother Scurrah : Yes : but I have nofc been in the School .

"A grant of money , or for an expenditure exceeding £ 500 shall be made at a Quarterly or Special Court " — leaving it to be inferred that anything under £ 500 the Council had power to grant . Do you mean to tell mo that if it was found necessary to spend £ 400 for repairs

tho Council has no power to do it ? The Chairman : Of course they have . After some discussion , Bro . Everett , Grand Treasurer , said when he saw Bro . Scurrah's notice of motion he was in favour of it , because he thought there was some other rule by which the Council were able to do

something for a deserving boy even if this Law 89 was expunged . But when Bro . Scurrah referred to Law 45 he ( Bro . Everett ) agreed with the Chairman that it did not

apply . He agreed with what Bro . Scurrah had said about the late action with regard to Rule 89 ; they were too strictly legal in the matter . They had several legal brethren on the Board of Management ; perhaps they had to congratulate themselves upon that fact ; but