The Masonic Mirror.

considered a joint-stock company were the best people to be selected to rule a Masonic lodge , and whether they would allow other persons than Freemasons to become shareholders . Bro . George having made some observations which were very indistinctly heard , said his object in making these observations was to elicit from the Building Committee an answer which might be satisfactory to the members of Grand Lodge . He concluded

by moving " That the portion of the minutes of tho last quarterly communication relating to the Building Coinmittee , bo not confirmed . " Some time elapsed , but at length Bro . HAREIS (> To . 185 ) , seconded the amendment . Bro . H . txjjits , P . J . G . W ., and chairman of the Building

Committee , said it seemed to him that Bro . George , in his excited and somewhat discursive speech , had forgotten to ask tlie questions of which he had given notice . Still , he submitted that as Bro . George had given not'ee of certain questions , he desired that the fullest answer should be given to them ; and therefore lie asked Grand Lodge to waive any privilege it might have , and

allow not only those questions but any others to be answered by those who represented them ; and , if they had fairly carried out the work entrusted to them , to approve them . Bro . George

was a young Mason , and had that night said things which he would wish unsaid on the morrow ; but he ( Bro . Havers ) would answer all the questions of which he had given notice categorically , and would then take the first -. — " Have the Building Committee granted a lease to the present tenant ? " If he was to give a plain answer he should say , No ; they had not granted a lease . They had not the power to grant a lease , unless

Grand Lodge should strengthen their hands that night ; and although they bad agreed to a lease it was subject , to the confirmation of Grand Lodge . With regard to the second question , " Have they given him permission to convert that lease into a marketable commodity by convoying it to a joint-stock company ? " isovi , if I was to answer emphatically

"No , " that would not be the whole truth , for in their conferences with Bro . Shrewsbury he had stated that he could find parties to hack him with large sums of money , and to carry on the business as a joint-stock company , upon which they told him that if he could produce persons of the most undoubted respectability as the members of it , and they shall prove their capacity to satisfactorily carry on the business , that they would accept them as tenants . Then as to the third question , "And are other than Masons allowed to become shareholders . " His

answer to that was , that was a matter with which they had nothing to do , although he should be glad if none but Masons were the shareholders . He should be most happy if every member would take but one share , it would be but the risk of £ 10 , and trust to what they would get for it , but there was no power to dictate to the persons who were to form the company whether they were Masons or not . He must , however ,

remind them that it was only last year they paid the last tontine dividend to those who built tho hall in which they were then assembled . The last dividend was paid to two old ladies , who were of course not Masons , and that hall therefore , built a hundred years ago , was built with the money of the public . He should be very glad if the Masons would take the matter in

hand , as he had stated in the letter he wrote a few days ago , and which he was prepared to justify ; but , if they as Masons , were applied to at the wrong time of the year , when their lodges did not meet , they could not complain that other persons should come forward and readily pay their deposits on shares amounting to £ 42 , 000 , but on the contrary they ought to be very glad of it . He hoped still that they should have a large number of Masons as

shareholders , and tbey could legitimately recommend it to their brethren . They would not be required to lay out a large sum of money in bricks and mortar , and they had a handsome and lucrative business ready made to their hands . It was a capital undertaking , and were he ( Bro . Havers ) not their representative on the committee , he would most assuredly bo a shareholder ..

Bro . Shrewsbury was a very able man , and their were few menwho had capital enough to carry on a thing so well , but Bro .. Shrewsbury told them that he would get them a company formed of men of the greatest respectability , and able to carryon the business in the most satisfactory manner , and he ( Bro . Havers ) would then tell them the terms . The present rental

ivas £ 800 per annum , and one guinea every time the hall was occupied , making in addition from £ 100 to £ 120 per annum . Tho company would commence by a payment of £ 1 , 200 a year for the first , second , and third years , £ 1 , 300 for tho fourth year , £ 1 , 500 for the sixth and seventh years , aud increasing £ 50 per

annum , until it reached £ 1 , 800 a-year , at which sum it would remain . His ( Bro . Havers ) impression was that more equitable terms could not be made , leaving a fair margin for profit for the company and he thought their committee had done well to get such , terms . Already deposits had been received on shares for £ 12 , 000 , and he believed that Grand Lodge would say that the committee had really done them good service . He hoped

that-Bro . George would not be blamed for raising this question , as he was most undoubtedly entitled to a plain and categorical answer . He had asked them how they had arrived at the conclusion that £ 5 , 000 was a fair premium for the lease of their buildings . Now the committee did not trust to their own judgment , but they placed the matter in the hands of two trustworthy Masons , Bros . Pullen and Horsey , for their professional opinion , and they , like good ' Masons , undertook this duty without

charge ; and he ivas glad to say that there was not a difference of move than £ 200 between their own valuers and those of the tenants , and under those circumstances the committee considered that they should allow this difference to go to the advantage of the tenant , and give him a chance of getting a living . The interest of the committee was to maintain the interests of their tenants , so that they should do their work well . His

( Bro . Havers' ) impression was that the company would raise more money than they wanted , and that they would not want more than £ 30 , 000 . They had already got £ 12 , 000 more than they wanted , and that was a very ample margin for them towork upon . He begged the Craft to understand that the whole of those and the adjoining buildings would remain theirs . They would have the right of access at all times to the Grand Hall , which would be their own private property ; they would bave

their lodge rooms , library , and other apartments , and all they would lease was the tavern , to which also they would have access , aud for which they would receive a rent of £ 1 , 800 per annum , besides a premium of £ 5 , 000 for the lease . They had no right to ask the company why they raised more capital than they wanted , as that was a matter for themselves . As to the question whether none but Masons should be allowed to become

shareholders , he said that 3 , 000 letters were sent to the lodges besides 1 , 700 private letters , inviting persons to take shares ,- but nothing was done , and were the committee then to say to the committee , to whom , after the most careful deliberation , you entrusted powers to arrange a lease , and which they had arranged on the most liberal terms , that Grand Lodge would then repudiate

what they had done three months ago ? Were they to do so , what members of the commercial community would ever negoeiate with them again ? They would refuse to deal with them at all . He asked every man who wished to see the prosperity of the tavern—lie asked every individual member of the Craft