Freemasonry And Labour.

As the labourer learns the Masonic truth that he is entitled to what he is worth , and no more , so , per contra , the capitalist and nobleman learn that it is their duty to pay the labourer all thnt he is worth . The stern law of supply and demand is tho usual cxcuso for capitalists , especially the

managers of corporations , who can be impersonal , and plead that they are working in the interest of a soulless body , to pay help no more than they aro legally obliged to pay ; but I have known mill ownets who found it wise to observe the golden rule , and to allow the moral element

some consideration , and to pay somewhat more than the lowest for which such service * could be procured . To employ good help and pay well for it , is deemed by many business men a great advantage . Masonry has no fixed rules for individual cases , but it urges tbe cardinal virtue of justice at all times .

The parabhtof the labourers certainly teaches that pay is not to be measured by hours so much aa by value of service rendered . It would be well if agitation were to cease with respect to the number of hours that men shall work in a day . If possible , pay ought not to be by the day , but by

the piece . Wherever the pay can bo measured by the amount of work actually done , considered with respect to the quality , it should be scaled according to that principle . Labourers and capitalists ought never to be in a spirit of antagonism . It is a new thing , comparatively , for America

to have a body of strikers array themselves against their employers , and take possession of the property of the latter , and hold it by force , and prevent , any one from being employed except themselves . These are Old World ideas , unsuited to the New , and they are often enforced by

workmen who are well paid already , and who do not know enough to let well alone . These workmen have not outgrown the European idea of the relation between labourers and capitalists , and look upon employers as their

natural enemies who seek only to get tbe most out of themselves and for the least compensation . This is not probably true anywhere in America . Our employers are more humane , and the wages paid here are the largest received by any workmen in the world engaged in corresponding industries .

At the same time it must be confessed that this is something of an age of greed and avarice . There is a great mania to be rich , and to get rich hurriedly . There is a growing pride in amassing large fortunes . To this end there may not always be that amount of profit-sharing with

the labourers whioh there ought to be . There can be little doubt that a judicious protection of home industries is recognised by almost every statesman as just . Yet even

in the matter of protection many would not feel that an industry was suitably protected which did not enable the manufacturer to realise an enormous rate of interest — twenty per cent , perhaps , upon his investment .

To conclude , then , the principles and rituals of Freemasonry certainly urge the payment of good wageB . They teach the dectrine that labour should be fully paid what it is actually worth . On the other hand , the rituals of Masonry teach

a labouring man that he should be worthy of all which he demands . His requests should not be arbitrary nor violent , but by worth , in respect of skill and patience and perseverance , he should prove himself deserving of all which he seeks .

. I believe that these teachings are just and perfect . If the Freemasons throughout the world should nso the great power which they possess to enforce these wholesome doctrines , they might perhaps do much to calm the agitated minds of troubled workmen , and do much to quiet the apprehensions of anxious employers . — Voice of Masonry .

River Side Hospitality.

RIVER SIDE HOSPITALITY .

TTNDER the above heading has been reported during JU the week a case that has called for the attention of Mr . Justice Mathew , with a special Jury , in the Queen ' s flench Division . The case occupied the Court for two days , and as the plantiff is well known to many of our readers

we are inclined to think a brief reference to it in these columns may be acceptable . The action was brought by Brother John Mayo , proprietor of the Castle Hotel , aast Molesey , against . 'Mr . E . Crawshaw Elgood . of Lloyd ' s to recover damages for alleged libel . Defendant pleaded mat tue , words complained of were true in substance and

River Side Hospitality.

in fact , and that they were written bona fide and without malice on a matter of publio interest . Mr . Crump Q . C ., ' and Mr . Scarlett appeared for the plantiff ; while Mr . Cook , Q . C , Mr . Elliot and Mr . Groser represented the defendant .

Mr . Crump , in opening the case for the plantiff , said the libel was contained in a letter which was written by the defendant and published in the Times and Standard . It appeared that a boat containing the defendant , his wife , another lady , and two gentlemen was run down by a launch ,

and the party came to the plantiff s hotel shortly after half : past eleven o'clock at night . This w 8 s on the evening of 16 th July , the day on which Molesey Regatta was held . The hotel was full , and Mr . Levett , a gentleman staying at

the hotel , offered to give up his bed-room to the ladies . The plantiff made up a bed for two of the gentlemen . in the dining-room , and eveiything was done to make" them comfortable . On 19 th July the letter complained of was published . It ran : — -

RIVER SIDE HOSPITALITY . SIB , —I hope my experience at a late boar last Saturday night is unique , for if it became usual a terror will have become added to boating on the River Thames . Oar party of two ladies and three gentlemen being unfortunately rnn down by a launch olose to the

Hampton Court Bridge , were rescued from a perilous immersion ia deep water by the prompt efforts of the riverside waterman and others and taken to the adjoining Castle Hotel , kept by a worthy of the name of Mayo , the ladies being half drowned and muoh frightened and upset . Here we were at first refused admittance , and it will

hardly be believed that after we had gained an entry three policemen were r . tiled in to eject us , on the gronnd , forsooth , that it waa after lioensi 1 hoars , that the house was full , and that we were wet and making the place in a mess . I need hardly say that the constables refused to obey such an order , and left the hotel . A gentleman

kindly gave np bis room to tbe ladies , who thus obtained shelter for the nigbt , as the last London train had gone , and it was impossible to get a closed conveyance for love or money . During a lengthy experience of the river I have never heard of such conduot , innkeepers being usually humane or politic enough to render every

attantion to tbe class from whom their entire custom comes , and at the next sessions I shall certainly oppose the renewal of this license . It is well , tee , that boating men should know how one landlord , at any rate , treats tbe victims of an accident which may happen to any one of them . I think it only fair to say that the hotel servants did all they could to neutralise the bi n . ' sh brutality of their master .

The learned counsel urged that there was not the slightest foundation for these charges , and the plaintiff bore out the opening statement . He pleaded that , in consequence of the number of people congregated in the neighbourhood of his bouse , he instructed his barman and

waiter not to allow any persons to enter the bar unless they were staying at the hotel , but the defendant and his friends came aud it was ascertained that an accident had happened they were admitted . There was no truth in the statements contained in the letter . It was untrue to say that he behaved with boorish brutality .

Mr . Crowhurst , formerly in the employ of the plaintiff , stated that at about half-past eleven o ' clock on the evening of 16 th July he was at the bar door , which was dosed . Defendant demanded a private room , and plaintiff replied that the hotel was full and he had no rooms to let .

Defendant said he would have a room , and plaintiff told him that if he did not bahave himself he would have the party put out . The defendant apologised , and plaintiff then directed that the wants of the party were to be attended to .

Henry Courady gave corroborative evidence . He added that prior to the defendant arriving , a disturbance had taken place , and Mr . Mayo told him that if any further disturbance occurred he was to fetch the police . When he heard words passing between the plaintiff and the

defendant he fetched the police . At that time he had no idea that an accident had happened . Subsequently the plaintiff told him to make the defendant and the other members of his party as comfortable as he could . He did bis best for

the gentlemen . After some confirmatory evidence , which clearly showed all that was practicable under the circumstances was done , the case for the plaintiff was closed .

Mr . B . 0 . Orlebar , accountant , residing at Carlisle House , Surbiton , confirmed the statements in the alleged libel , and under cross examination stated that the last train to London had left when the ladies were in a condition to

go . He did not demand rooms and hot drinks . He considered that the plaintiff was guilty of gross inhumanity in doing nothing whatever for people who had been rescued from the river . Mrs , Elgood , wife of the defendant , said by the accident