Grand Lodge Of Emergency.

vote , arguing that it was not Bro . Farnfield ' s present , but his past services , they were about to reward . They were not to consider the amount which the G . Sec . annually received , but the amount which the Asst . G . Sec . deserved . He also informed them that if Bro . Farnfield had other sources of income , it was nothing to them in considering what he merited at the hands of G . L ., while his general acquaintance with the Masonic Charities , to one of which he was the Sec , added to his efficiency as a servant of the Craft . ( Loud cheers . )

Bro . UDALL , in seconding the motion , remarked that the cost of the G . Sec . ' s office in 1839 bore the proportion of 28 | per cent , to the whole income of G . L ,, whereas the cost at present was only 13 j per cent . ( Cheers . ) Bro . BINCKES , in supporting the resolution , asserted that Bro . Farnfield bestowed as much of his time upon the other Masonic Charities , as upon that with which he was himself connected . The Report of the Board of General Purposes was , upon the subject of salariesmeagre and unsatisfactoryand did not faithfully represent

, , the report of the sub-eommittee to whom that question had been referred , an important clause having been purposely omitted . ( Hear , hear . ) Bro . F . SLIGHT thought it would not be in accordance with business , propriety , or justice , for G . L . to agree to a vote giving the Asst . G . Sec . a salary equal to that of the G . Sec . himseli Bro . ROXBURGH disclaimed all personal feeling in the matter , but G . L . were the trustees of the funds of the Craft , and therefore , in increasing the salary of their Officersthey ought to proceed upon a

, sound basis . He denied that in the Report of the Board of General Purposes the report of the sub-committee was suppressed ; and explained that that committee having gone beyond the limit of their instructions , the Board did no more than cut from their report all that was in excess of their proper inquiry . This explanation was met with indignant cries to the effect that the Board took what suited them and omitted all beside . After this interruption ,

Bro . ROXBURGH proceeded to show that Bro . Farnfield's services were very light indeed , so light that any Mason capable of writing a good hand could perform them in three hours each day . Bro . HAVERS , who stated that he was an intimate friend of Bro . Farnfield , likewise opposed the vote . He justified the paragraph in the Report of the Board of General Purposes upon the ground that it would have been a dereliction of duty upon their part and a gross abuse of the confidence of the Brethren , if apprized as they had been of the intention of some Brethren to move for the increase of the

salaries of some of the Officers , they had withheld from G . L . the information which was necessary to their arriving at a correct decision . As a general rule , he held that the subject of salaries should rest entirely with the Board of General Purposes , as motions like that then before G . L . were most inconvenient ; and with reference to Bro . Farnfield , he considered that if he had been a faithful servant of G . L ., G . L . had been a kind master to him ; for that had he been from 1 S 25 a book-keeper in a merchant ' s office , it was problematic whether his salary would now equal that which he received- from the Craft . In

the Bank of England he would , had he entered it , have received at first £ 50 per annum , but by no possibility could that salary have increased above £ 260 per annum . This statement was met by a direct negative from Bro . Udall , an interruption which Bro . Lord Panmure considered most unbecoming . Bro . HAVERS however went on to say , that Bro . Farnfield ' s duties had been diminished ; and thought G . L . ought to avoid the possibility of the reproach that as they grew in wealth so there was a disposition to divide among themselves the accumulation of their wealth .

Bro . DOBIE having warmly supported the vote , The M . W . the GRAND MASTER , before putting the question , mentioned that although he had formed an opinion upon the question before G . L ., he should not intrude it upon the Brethren , as he believed they would not hastily or without consideration arrive at a decision in the matter . His lordship was about to put the question , when

Bro . SAVAGE interfered , for the purpose of stating that ho had come to G . L . undecided as to how he should vote , but that the arguments in favor of the motion had persuaded him of the justice of rewarding Bro . Farnfield as he deserved . ¦ Bro . WEBB was on'principle opposed to the vote ; for as trustees of a great public charity , they were bound to deal prudently and economically with its funds . The Rev . Bro . PORTAL said that it had been objected that Bro . Farnfield was in receipt of a salary from the Benevolent Institution , but with that G . L . had nothing whatever to do , as the whole of the work , with a very trifling exception , was done at his own house , after office hours , with assistance paid for by himself . It had been urged

that as trustees of the funds of the Craft , G . L . ought to be very careful how it increased the salaries of its servants ; 'but ho would observe , that if , as faithful trustees , we could , for the sake of a little popularity , allow £ 2000 to be voted in tiro years to purposes altogether unconnected with Masonry , wo could surely give a paltry grant of £ 100 a year to reward a faithful and deserving servant of the Craft . ( Hear , hear . ) On a show of hands , the motion was declared to be carried by a very largo majority .

BENEVOLENT INSTITUTION . Bro . BINCKES , in moving that an additional grant of £ 100 per annum be made to each branch of the above Charity , proceeded to show that G . L . had ample funds at its disposal to justify them in granting the increase , as well as the power to do so . In 1842 their general balance was £ 1517 , and they , that year , contributed £ 200 to each of these Charities . A few years afterwards that balance was £ 1835 , and then they voted an additional £ 100 between them , which continued until 1855 , in which year , their balance being £ 2470 ,

they made a , similar addition to the funds of those charities ; and-he now wished them to make the total contribution £ 800 per annum , namely , £ 400 to each Asylum , as the general balance was last year £ 2714 . He then referred to the great number of Candidates of both sexes rejected at the last election for want of funds , and he earnestly entreated G . L . not to allow two such excellent Institutions to languish for irant of support , believing , as he did , that the Brethren of our own day had a more immediate claim upon our sympathy than posterity had .

Bro . BARRETT seconded the resolution . Bro . SAVAGE moved as a rider that each Lodge should have a vote for each £ 100 now proposed to be voted , in all elections to these Institutions , upon the ground that as the money came from the contributions of all the Lodges . in the Craft , so they should , upon the same principle , as private subscribers be entitled to a vote for their contributions . This amendment having been seconded , Bro . SMITH opposed it , as such a regulation would interfere with

the influx of private subscriptions . Bro . HAVERS questioned if G . L . had the means of making this grant . It was clear that if they gave their money in annuities they could not at the same time vote casual assistance . Bro . SVMOXDS was opposed to Bro . Savage's amendment , as the votes of the Lodges would swamp those of private subscribers , as they would have 4000 votes , whereas for the same amount of contribution private subscribers would only have 1000 . Bro . ROXBURGH , having supported the amendment upon tiie same grounds as those upon which Bro . Savage moved it , it was , on a show of hands , carried by a small majority . The motion , as amended , was then agreed to . P . G . L , OF BUCKS AND BERKS .

The Rev . Bro . PORTAL begged to withdraw his motion for the production of the minutes of this Province , on the understanding that the return received by the G . M . should be open to the inspection of the Craft . The M . W . G . M . said that he had communicated to the P . G . M . his opinion that a P . G . L . ought to he held annually . The Rev , Bro . PORTAL said ho was sure this statement would be received with great satisfaction by the Brethren in the Province . Bro . HAVERS wished to know what use Bro . Portal meant to

make of these voluminous returns now that he had got them . The Rev . Bro . PORTAL said that if the worthy Brother would give him notice of his question ho would have an answer at the next Grand Lodge . ( Laughter . ) Bro . HAVERS thought Bro . Portal ought to give an answer at once , as he had had two years to prepare himself . ( Oh , Oh . ) The subject then dropped , and the business being concluded , G . L . was closed in ample form and with solemn prayer , and adjourned .

Ar01101

GRAND OFFICERS . —The following were appointed Grand Officers for the present year , by the M . W . G . M , at the Grand Lodge held on the 28 th April ; those in italics are new appointments . The Eight Hon . Lord Panmure , D . G . M . ; Bros . Col . J . Sludholme Brownn' / g , C . B ., S . G . W . ; WyndhamPortal , J . G . W . ; Samuel Tomkins , G . Trea ' s . ; Revds . Edward Moore , and Arthur R . Ward , G . Chaps . ; Francis RoxburghG . Reg . ; W . Gray ClarkeG . See . Henry L . Crohn

, , ; , G . Sec . for German Correspondence ; William Pviteney Scott , S . G . D . ; J . S . Hopwood , J . G . D . ; Samuel W . Dtmkes , G . Sup . of Works ; Richard W . Jennings , G . Dir . of Cers . ; Arthur W . Woods , Asst . G . Dir . of Cers . ; Daniel Gooch , G . S . f ) . ; Chas . E . Horsley , G . Org . ; and Jos . Smith , G . POTS .