The Benevolent Elections.

with 33 SS and 3231 votes respectively . The second Essex widow secured the next vacancy with 2808 votes and was followed by the British Guiana widow with 2554 and another Londoner with 2254 votes ; these two completing the

number of 26 who obtain immediate annuities . The three deferred annuities , which will be filled up as they fall vacant , were all secured by London widows , who polled respectively 2220 , 218 7 , and 2182 votes , the second and third having votes

in hand at starting . The two highest unsuccessful candidates who share in the John Hervcy Memorial Fund hailed also from London , and polled 1822 and 14 68 votes respectively , and a Suffolk candidate , with one of two from Cumberland and

Westmorland tied for the £ 5 from the Emulation Lodge of Improvement with r 266 votes , the second of the two who headed the list of candidates having now been 17 years before the electors . The Middlesex widow polled 1263 , or only three votes

less than the two just mentioned . Originally , as we have said , there were 59 candidates , of which 19 were furnished by London and 40 by the Provinces and Districts Abroad . But by the two deaths and the withdrawal , there were only 56 went

to the poll , namely , iS London and 38 Provincial , and it is worthy of remark that 15 of the former obtained vacancies , and only 14 of the latter , while two London widows take between them the JOHN HERVEY Fund . Be it added that the votes

brought forward were 35 , 445 , and those issued for this election 132 , 811 , making the total available . Of the new votes , however , only 88 , 6 37 were polled , the numbers unused or , spoiled reaching the formidable figure of 44 ^ 74 .

It must have been exceedingly gratifying to the friends and supporters of the Institution to know that , thanks to the great success of the last two Festivals , the Committee of Management had felt themselves justified in augmenting the number of

annuitants on the two Funds by eight men and eight widows , five male and three widow annuitants having been added to the establishment in May , 18 99 , and three male and five widow

annuitants on this occasion . Hence , too , the Unsuccessful list is reduced , there being only 26 men and 27 widows who will go forward to the elections in May , 1901 .

Masonic Jurisprudence.

MASONIC JURISPRUDENCE .

[ COMMUNICATED . ! Whilst the questions wc have discussed in the preceding articles are matters of public interest , they arc not questions

which exercise , to any great extent , either the private lodge or the private brother ; and wc now propose to bring into the arena of discussion such points as more intimately affect both . Let us begin with the subject of voting .

A Freemason's vole is given either by show of hands or by ballot , all elections being , as a rule , conducted in the latter method . The Tyler , however , need not be balloted for . He is " chosen" ( Article 136 ) . A simple majority decides most cases . The most important exception is the case of a brother

being excluded . In such case the majority must be two-thirds of the members present . This limitation ought to be clearl y understood , as difficulties have ; frequently arisen by reason of the

Master in the chair being satisfied with a majority of two-thirds of those present and voting . But Article 210 is very explicit , and inferentially the Constitutions contemplate the possibility of brethren being present and not voting .

This point has actually been before Grand Lodge on appeal , and was also before a District Grand Lodge , or , rather a District Grand Master , some live years ago , and the cases are interesting enough to deserve narration . The appeal before Grand Lodge in June , 18 S 0 , was based on the following facts :

A candidate was about to be balloted for , and , suspecting an unfriendly attitude on ( he part of some of the members , the Worship ful Master made a special appeal to the lodge on the subject , and then the ballot was taken , two black balls appearing . Acting within rights conferred upon him by the lodge by-law ' s ,

the Worship ful Master at once onh'vcil a second ballot , and intimated to the lodge that voting w ; is quite optional . Acting upon this hint the majority of the brethren held aloof from the

ballot-box , and lour balls only were cast , namely , the proposer and seconder , and two other brethren . Again two black balls appeared , and as it was quite clear that the former two brethren would not black-ball their own candidate , the objecting members

Masonic Jurisprudence.

were identified , and the Worshipful Master excluded them from the lodge . . This in itself was wrong , as the Worshipful Master can only exercise powers of this kind in respect of visitors ( Article 151 ) . Exclusion , even for the remainder of a meeting , can only be inflicted by a vote of the lodge ( Article 209 ) ,

temporary exclusion , however , requiring only a bare majority . The two brethren appealed on the ground that the Worshipful Master , in making the intimation aforesaid , had tampered with the ballot . The District Grand Master ordered their reinstate , ment , and an appeal by the Worshipful Master to Grand Lodge was dismissed .

From whatever point of view it be regarded , the Master ' s action was utterly wrong and inexcusable . It cannot be too often impressed on brethren that a black ball is quite as

constitutional and as legal as a white one , and a brother who exercises his constitutional right of voting against a proposal , whether by ballot or otherwise , has a right to be protected from abuse .

The second case alluded to is probably unique , besides being eminently instructive . The circumstances were as follows : On the ordinary night of election in a colonial lodge everything was prepared in the usual way for the election of Worshipful Master . The ballot box was passed round , and voting papers put in , and

the result showed 10 votes for Brother A ., and nine for Brother B ., in addition to which there was a blank paper , rightly surmised to have been put in by Brother B ., who was Senior Warden , and expected election . This result came as a complete surprise to Brother B . ' s friends ( among whom the

Worshipful Master was to be numbered ) . He proceeded to rule from the chair that the presence of a blank paper vitiated the ballot , and ordered a second one . This time Brother Senior Warden voted for himself , and the numbers were 10 and 10 , and the Worshipful Master , giving his casting vote to Brother

B ., declared him elected . Brother A . was an old P . M ., and had no wish to serve again , and , moreover , being absent , knew nothing of what was going on , and expressed his indignation , when he heard of it , at the use made of his name by a number of brethren , who wished to pass a slight on Brother B . As these

brethren felt a little ashamed of themselves , the W . M . ' s extraordinary ruling was not challenged . That he himself felt doubtful on the subject can bo surmised from the fact that he asked that if any brother wished to appeal he should lose no time in doing so .

I he incident , however , got into a local Masonic journal , and attracted the attention of the District Grand Master , and , after inquiry , he annulled the second ballot , and Brother A . was declared elected . It is satisfactory to add that , Brother A . declining , Brother B . was unanimousl y elected at the next mcetinor .

These two incidents serve to show that abstention from voting is quite permissible and that it is not necessary , as many suppose even now , that if a brother desires to refrain , he must temporarily withdraw from the lodge .

All the same it is an abuse that the Worshipful Master should direct all assenting brethren to abstain from voting , and were il to become a common practice , it would doubtless lead to special legislation .

It may here be remarked that the second or casting vote of the presiding officer , is in the nature of a trust , committed to him for the express purpose of rescuing the lodge from a possible deadlock . It is not given him for the purpose of doubling the vote he has in his private capacity , in fact , circumstances may

demand that it shall be used in a manner opposed to his private convictions . He must not use it in such a way as to create a precedent , e . g ., he would not use it to carry a new bylaw . In the case already quoted , where the Senior Warden and another brother obtained equal votes in the election of the

Worshipful Master , Masonic tradition dictated to the presiding officer the direction in which he should use his second vote . The S . W . naturally expects election , and again , a brother who

lias- not passed the chair , has claims superior to those of n brother who has , other things , of course , being equal . He ver ) rightly , therefore , voted for Brother B . Where he went wrong was in what happened previously .

The ballot is rightly held to lie a very sacred thing , and Grand Lodge ; has , very properly , always discouraged any attempts to violate its secrecy . Masters and Secretaries have from time to time displayed great ingenuity in trying to trace adverse votes , but when appealed against , they have invariabl y come to grief .

On the other hand , it has equall y been held to be a violation of the ballot when the dissenting members have publicly announced their intention , or have , at a later period , publicly announced what they have done . A previous intimation of their intention , made privatel y to the Worshipful Master , is , ol