Modern Writers Upon Freemasonry.—Ii.

We will close the present notice with a few remarks on the election of a brother to the chair of a Lodge . Dr . Oliver says ( p . 170 )—" Some Lodges name one qualified brother , and ballot for his reception , but this course is opeu to objection ; for however unfit he may be for the office , there are few brethren , after he has been formally nominated by the Worshipful Master , who would like to incur the personal odium of voting

against him . Others allow the Master to propose one , and the Senior Warden another , and elect him who has most votes . But the most comprehensive method appears to be to nominate every qualified member belonging to the Lodge , and let each brother vote for the individual who , in his judgment , is most likely to execute the duties of the office to the satisfaction of the brethren , by writing his name legibly on a slip of paper and handing it to the Past Master , who should announce it to the Secretaiy ,

and when all the brethren have voted , the last-mentioned officer should communicate to the Worshipful Master the names of the candidate who has the greatest number of votes . By this course the Lodge would arrive at a just conclusion , and most probably secure the best man . There are Lodges in which we have known a regular canvass instituted for the office ; but it is a custom that we should be inclined most unequivocally to condemn . Although not absolutely unconstitutional , there is an indelicacy about it from which a sensitive man ought to shrink . The truly worthy and modest man will rest his claim solely on his merits , and not on the personal attachment of his friends . "

So far , so good . But Dr . Oliver commences this subject ( p . 169 ) by saying that the process is not regulated by the Constitutions , which merely provide that the Worshipful Master be elected annually by ballot . It strikes us that the words " by ballot" do very strictly regulate the process : they clearly exclude any proposal by fche Worshipful Master , or any one else , of any one or more brethren

whatever , and the onl y legal method seems to be that each brother should vote secretl y , that is , by writing his vote privately on paper for the brother he thinks most fit for the office . The reading by the Secretary of the names of the brethren who are qualified according to the Constitutions , is not a nomination , and is not intended as such ; it is only meant to prevent brethren from unconsciously voting for a

brother not legally qualified , and so to prevent confusion and the unnecessary loss of a vote . The mode , we believe , usually adopted in voting , is for each brother to place his voting paper on the Master ' s pedestal , or in the ballot box , and for the Worshi pful Master to inspect the voting papers and declare the result , without the intervention of either the Past Master or Secretary . As for a canvass , we

can only remember one instance of a brother who canvassed for himself , and ho was never elected , though he much wished for the chair , ( and of another , by-the-bye , who asked for office , and did not get it ) , but we can scarcely conceive any election without the merits of the several brethren eli g ible being duly canvassed for them by their brethren , the practical result of which , as far as we know generall yis ,

, that a majority of the brethren have come to the same conclusion before the ballot commences . Certainly no sensible man would ever think of canvassing tor himself , though he may delicately do so for his deserving friend ,