Correspondence.

CORRESPONDENCE .

All Letters must bear the name and address of the Writer , not necessarily for publication , but as a guarantee of good faith . We do not hold ourselves responsible for the opinions of onr Cor . respondents . We cannot undertake to return rejected communications .

BEO . EAYNHAM STEWART'S MOTION . To the Editor of the FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE . DEAR SIR AND BBOTHIR , —Thongh perhaps at an early period before the next Quarterly Communication of Grand Lodge , I should feel obliged if you would now , and at other convenient opportunities during the interval , call tho attention of the supporters of Brother Stewart ' s motion—i . e ., The contribution by the Board of General

Purposes of another £ 800 per annum to the Benevolent Institution ; as the vast increase in the number of Lodges since the grant of the first £ 800 per annum entails a similar increase in number of votes required to be given to Lodges for that consideration , and for which no additional value is received , —and bog of them to prove their sincerity by mustering strongly on that occasion to support it , in order that

the same tactics which were employed in March last , to nullify this same proposition—which had been unanimously carried at the previous Quarterly Communication in December 1881—by the non-confirmation of that portion of the minutes which related to this extra grant , on the plea , by the brother who opposed it , that he was not aware what was the amount of the net income of Grand Lodge ,

while at the same time thafc brother held office as a member of the Finance Committee , which committee had sent in its yearly statement , duly audited , and which statement had been taken as read bnt a few minutes before the opposition to Bro . Stewart ' s motion was proclaimed . Still more j these accounts had been read by the Grand Secretary , and confirmed , and at the moment they lay on his table .

I cannot help expressing my astonishment when I discover that the Worshipful Brother who proposed to reduce the amount by one-half —and " who professed his willingness always to do what he could for the Charities , " —with others holding high positions in the Craft , and who supported the amendment , that their names are nowhere to be found in the books issued by tbe three Institutions containing the

list of donors and annual subscribers ; so that unless there be a mistake , which is doubtful , their names are conspicuous by absence . In fact , all they have contributed towards the Institutions is the quarterages , which , by law , are deducted from their subscriptions . Now I do not wish to detract for one moment from tbe undoubted merits of these worthy brethren , but I do think that opposition would come

with better taste if at emanated from some ono who had indeed shown his appreciation of the Institutions . I am quite in accord with the writer of the letter headed " LITT IE SELF , " which appeared in your columns , when he recommends that those who sign their names to the circulars recommending candidates should show their earnestness

by putting their hands into their own pockets , instead of taking credit to themselves for supporting their friends or proteges , by extracting moneys from the pockets of other people . No doubt it is very clever , and often effectual , but it is not Masonry *—it is not acting on the square . Yours fraternally , OHM , 474 .

UNITED GRAND LODGE

To tlie Editor of the FREEMASON ' S CHRONICIE , DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —I beg to thank you for your very fair remarks in reference to my share in the business of the last Quarterly Communication of the Grand Lodge . You are perfectly correct in your presumed explanation of what I " meant" in the notice of

motion which fche President of the Board of Masters rejected ; and I am quite snre that it was well understood in other quarters , notwithstanding the interpretation put upon the use by me of the word 1 District . " But the discussion of the question , whether or not the

lod ges within ten miles of Freemasons' Hall , London , " shall continue to be Lodges in the London District , " as expressed in the Book of Constitutions , ia only deferred for three months , as you may rest assured I shall submit such a notice of molion for next Grand Lodge as shall unmistakably express what is really desired .

Yours truly and fraternally , JAMES STEVENS , P . M . P . Z Clapham , 15 th June 1882 .

DISTRICT GRAND LODGES FOR LONDON

To the Editor of the FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —I think no reasonable exception can oe taken to Bro . James Stevens ' s motion that Grand Lodge should respectfull y suggest to His Royal Highness the Grancl Master the esirabilit y 0 f erecting fonr superior bodies which , by whatever name oy may be designated , shall oossess the orivilee-es of a Provincial

Q fl . % e , and look moro immediately after the well-being of the ^ att in ttte sections they preside over than it is possible for Graud ^ otjge with its multifarious duties and responsibilities to do . That tho oc geB m the London district have increased amazingly in numbers " P \ e lasfc quarter of a century is beyond question , and it is this visio S J . crea . * necessitating as it does a great amount of super . I am * ' ° h * in my opinion , justifies his very reasonable suggestion . m surprised , however , that so clear-sighted a man as Bro , Stevens

Correspondence.

should rest hia motion ou tho comparative exclusion of London brethren from Grand and Provincial Grand Lodge honours . Though , as I have fvetinently heard Bro . Binckes declare , Grand Stewards aro not exactly Grand Officer .- * , being , to use his homely simile , "Neither fish , tlesh , fowl , nor good red herring , " it is nevertheless tho fact that all the red apron Lodges belong to tho Metropolitan district

, and a Provincial brother who aspires to this honour must first bo received as a joining member of one of theso Lodges . Then what I will term the permanent officials of Grand Lodgo—Grand Treasurer , Grand Registrar , Grand Secretary , President of the Board of General Purposes , and Grand Director of Ceremonies , Grand Assist . Secretary —are almost of necessity Metropolitan rather than Provincial , and I

think it will be very generally allowed that of those Grand Officers who aro appointed year by year by the Grand Master , a very fair proportion are Metropolitan . Take the Grand Officers for tho present year , of whom , offhand , I can mention three who are decidedly Metro , polifcan , namely , the Lord Mayor ( Grand Junior Warden and W . M . of No . 1 ) , Bro . Horace Jones ( Grand Superintendent of Works ) who

, ia City Architect , and Bro . Littell ( Assistant Grand Pursuivant ) , who is a Past Muster of the Dalhousie Lodge , No . 860 , and tho Alliance Lodge No . 1827 . Here we have nine onf of some five or six and twenty Grand Officers , who are certainly Metropolitan , while somo of them enjoy Provincial honours likewise . Then as to Provincial

honours , no London brother who aspires to them need feel himself excluded . Middlesex is a Province , and so are Kent , Surrey , Essex , and Herts , and all a man has to do in order to place himself in position qualifying him for Provincial Grand Office is , to get himself elected a member of a Lodge in one of those Provinces . It is nofc

even necessary he should reside in the Province , non . residence involving nothing more than the payment of an additional fee . While , therefore , I heartily approve of Bro . Stevens ' s proposition , I think he has acted unwisely in basing its necessity on so unsubstantial a reason . _ The real need lies in tho fact thafc the three hundred and odd Lodges in the Metropolitan district require more looking after than they can possibly get under existing circumstances . I trust Bro . Stevens will take this hint , even from one who is so inexperienced as , Yours faithfully and fraternally , PETER .

To the Editor of the FREEMASON ' S CHRONICIE .

DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —I cannot pretend to offer any opinion on the very delicate question as to where the prerogative of tbe Grand Master ends , and the powers of Grand Lodge begin , bnfc ifc strikes me that Bro . Stevens , by his resolution , suggesting that the G . Master sbould suh-divide tbe Metropolitan area , to bo governed ,

each district , by what will virtually be a Provincial Grand Lodge , is , unintentionally no donbt , doing his best to foster thafc absurd lore of tinsel which is already far too wide-spread in the Craft . We are constantly being told that the great beauty of Freemasonry is ifcs simplicity , and its perfect innocency of all outward show . But for a brother to figure in Lodge with a whole regiment of jbwels on his

breast may perhaps be very awo-inspiring , but it certainly does nofc carry fche idea of simplicity and absence of show . There are , probably , hundreds of London brethren who hold Grand and Provincial Grand Lodge honours and if Bro . Stevens ' s suggestion should be acted npon by Grand Locige , and tho Grand Master should graciously give effect to it , we shall havo such an array of gorgeously-bedizened

brethren as will frighten out of their wits the quieter members of the Craft . If moro rulers are wonted for the metropolis , by all means let us have them , nor is our Grand Master the man to check the legitimate aspirations of worthy Craftsmen for appointment to positions of honour . We all know , however , that he strongly objects to fuss and show , and we may reasonably infer from his disposition in this particular that , from the tinsel point of view , he would rather

restrict than increase tbe lumber of office-holders . Besides , where is the honour in being appointed a Provincial Grand Officer when , by reason of fcheir being so largely increased in number , they are made so cheap ? Artemus Ward ' s famous regiment of volunteers was composed entirely of commanding officers , and ifc looks very much as if the Craffc will nofc be contented with their lot until every man jack of them is a full-fledged Grand Officer . Yours truly , X . Y . Z .

" HONOUR TO WHOM HONOUR IS DUE . "

To the Editor of the FREEMASON ' S CHRONICIE . DEAR SIB AND BROTHER , —Permit me , throngh your columns , to thank "A READER" for his very fair and impartial criticism of my letter on this subject , and yon , Sir , for your exhaustive article on the same ; but I beg of yon both to understand that I recur to the subject , not with the intention of presuming to lay down a hard and fast

line , but as a basis for more experienced heads than my own to suggest a remedy for what I consider a very fair question for argument . In the hurry of writing my former letter I unintentionally left out Life , Annual , and Occasional Subscribers , who have every right to be classified with Life Governors , and I hereby apologise for the omission , I am perfectly aware that monetary advantages alone are no

criterion of merit and ability , bufc when one sees brethren promoted to the highest rank attainable who have the means , and in almost every case the ability , but who do not use the former , —or afc all events whose names are absent from the books issued by the three different I nstitutions , assupportiug the fundamental principleof Freemasonry , —

over the heads of others possessed of both tho qualifications beforementioned , who have laboured iu and nobly supported Freemasonry in all its branches , and who have been in harness fifteen , twenty , tv ,-c * nty-five and thirty years—I might say even more—one cannot but think fchafc a remedy might be found for snch apparent neglect .