Correspondence.

CORRESPONDENCE .

— : o : — We do not hold ourselves responsible for the opinions of our Cor . respondents .

We cannot undertake to return rejected communications . AU Letters must bear the name and address of the Writer , not necessarily for publication , hit as a guarantee of good faith .

— : o : — DISPOSAL OP LODGE FUNDS . To the Editor of Tn- FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE .

DEAR SIR AND BROTHER . — "UNION JACK ' S" last Balance Sheet shows an improvement at tho end of tho year to this extent ., that the account opened with a balance duo to Treasurerof £ 5 3 s 3 d , bnt closed with one in hand amounting to £ 68 13 s 5 d . Yet , though apparently

there is a modest Benevolent Fund , showing a balance in hand from previous year of £ 6 2 s fid , tho bnlk of the Receipts finds its way into the stomachs of tho members , Refreshment figuring for a fraction over £ 287 out of a total Rece ' pt from Subscriptions , & o . amounting

to £ 392 10 s lOd . "UNION . TACK" says the Lodgo means to vote a pnrt of its balance to one of the Charit'es . Be it so , and the sooner the better . Thoso who eat three-fourths of their incomings should find something for those who havo few or no incomings to eat . More than this need not be said .

My chief object in writing thoso presents is ono which affords me much p ^ asure , nnd I trust your readers will bo equally please ' . I am desirous of setting before them what I think is worthy of be ng described as a model balance sheet . Ifc is that of a Provincial Lodge , ancl relates to the year 1876 . But though nearly two years old , it is worth giving in summary . The statement speaks for itself .

EECEIPTS . Balance from previous year , including cash in bank , in b-. ind , and Masonio HaU Shares , together £ 275 8 9 Fees ( Initiation and Joining ) , Subscriptions , and

Charity Fund 339 10 0 Banker's Interest and Dividend on Masonio Hall Shares 7 5 1 £ 622 3 10

EXPENDITURE . St . John's Festival , teas , and refreshments £ 135 6 2 Kent 40 1 0 Various—Stationery , New Collars , & c , Tyler , & c . ... 44 fi 0 G . L . Fees and Prov . G . L . do 37 18 0

Benevolent account , including £ 100 to Local Masonic Fund , fifty guineas to Girls' School , fifty guineas to non . Masonic Charitable Institution , annual subscription to tho Boys' and Girls' Schools , and Male and Female Funds of R . M . B . I ., together , eight guineas ( at two guineas each ) , and donation to an individual 216 3 0

473 14 2 Balance—Cash and Masonic Hall Shares 148 9 8 £ 622 3 10

Let me add that this Lodge has given £ 741 to Masonic Charitable Institutions , namely , £ 252 to Boys' School , £ 189 to Girls' School , £ 100 to Male Fund R . M . B . I ., and £ l 00 to Female Fund ditto ; £ 100 to Local Masonic Charity . In return for these , and for its fixed annual subscription of two guineas to each of tho four funds connected with the central Charities , it commands 78 votes for Boys' School , 37 for

Girls School , 24 votes Male Fnnd , and 24 votes Female Fund R . M . B . I ., besides 100 votes to Local Masonic Charity . For its dona , tions to non-Masonic Charity it is entitled to 11 votes for twenty years , terminable at different dates . This is unquestionably a mi del balance sheet , for which the Lodge deserves the greatest kudos . Let other Lodges seek to imitate it ,

and our Charitable Institutions—central and local—will fare well . But what a contrast to thoso which havo been furnished to you by "UNION JACK !" Fraternally yours , OLD FILL

P . S . From a return for the year 1877-78 of the Lodges for the Pro . vince in which the above is located , I find the number of its members set down as 113 . If we reckon the number at about 100 for the year 1876 , we shall find the expenditure on refreshment is afc tho rate of very little more than £ 1 per member , while I shonld judge from the amount received as subscription ( £ 196 ) that an individual members' contribution would bo about twice that sum . —O . F .

"Charity;" Is It "Giving?"

" CHARITY ; " IS IT "GIVING ?"

To the Editor of THE FREEMASON ' CHRONICLE . SIR , —The correspondence in your columns ou tho " charity " question ought to raise some serious considerations , and I venture to start a few points . I do so because certain of our brethren seem to think : thafc Freemasonry exists , only , to support certain Institutions called

" Masonic Charities ; that all who are called Masous are bound to subscribe sums not below a certain minimum ; that no member in the Craft is freo to exercise his judgment as to deserts or management of tha Institutions called " Masonic Charities ; ' that , being Masons , they are bound to blindly and indiscriminately support snch Charities ,

"Charity;" Is It "Giving?"

forsaking all others , while , at the same time , they are to ask for the support of the outside or popular world to " Charities " in which the initiated only , or their immediate connections , can have the slightest chance of becoming—should thoir necessities require it , or they become qualified—beneficially interested . I take issue upon these points . I shall nofc deal with them

exhaustively , ancl I will , as much as possible , write italics , though I shall use none . I wonld proceed to show thafc some of the views you have admitted to yonr columns , if acted upon , would be subversive of all Masonio principles ; for some of the proposals would end in making each Lodge meeting a mere meeting of Board of Guardians , but where

each Brother gave of his substance , in placo of distributing , as in legal re'ief , tho forced contributions of others , and we should have a huge benefit Society , not for equal benefits of all subscribers , bnt for blind giving to tho best beggars—to those who , by externals , could " qualify " readiest as the most needful to be relieved . Bnt I shall not attempt this exhaustive work . I havo charity at heart ; but I

cannot ; afford the time to demonstrate what must bo clear to all who have unmuddled brains . I shall only charge myself with the task of pointing out a few plain facts , leaving clear heads to fill up the pictures . I distinctly charge : that those who aro endeavouring to make out thafc giving to what is called " charity" is the one essential principle of a

Lodge member , aro offending against the " Antient charges and re > 'illations , " inasmuch as they are countenancing dissent , from the " original plan of Freemasonry . " This " original plan . " which is to ho maintained in all its purity , is set forth in tho Book of Constitutions , and th'iso who can run can read that book . It . will there be seen that the institntion of «\ gantic " charities " was no part of the " original

plan , " but that , proper and discriminate charity was incidental to ifc . It has been said that a Freemason's Lodge is tho Freemason ' s Church . I put it on a higher pedestal . I say a Lodge is tho Freemason ' s Rome , dedicated not only to tho worship of God , but where tho Freemason may unite with tho " virtuous of every persuasion in the firm and pleasing bond of fraternal love . " In this connection " charity , "

prop rly so-called , arises—nnd true charity helps—not pauperises , " It bles = eth him who gives and him who receives , " bat your " giving , " in the form of votes , troubles the thoughtful " subscriber , " while it degrades the receiver . Upon this " charity voting , " however , I will not enter , for I should speak too strongly upon this subject in this , my nwiden effort in Masonic controversy .

I utterly deuv the right , of any ono to fix , as yon , Sir , do , and Bro . Bfldolyffe does , the minimum of another ' s charity . Charity is free , and onr law , I mean of course our Masonic law , teaches us that we are to be prudent . This word shonld be printed in capitals , so as to impress ns that we should be prudent , that we do not distress ourselves or famlies ; that we do not cause others to give thafc

which they should uso i . i making their foundation in life firm ; that we do not make a virtue of thafc which is a viceand the greatest of all vices—ostentation in giving , —and we should remember , too , that it is no charity in a man to give that , which belongs to his creditors or his family , in order that he may win renown , which a man is tempted to do by ostentatious

giving . As to what could be obtained by fixing an amount which , you say , each brother ought to give , I say that it would be a great degradation and danger to the Craft to have such amounts . " Degradation , " because our institution would be proved to be radically wrong if its members squired to have distributed among some of them yearly such large amounts to ke ^ p them from the pangs

of distress , and a " danger " because the exhibition of large giving will tempt tho crafty , the lazy , and tho improvident to become members of our ancient institution for the sake of what they mi ght get . Do you doubt this ? Look at any town where there are " charity " funds , and you will seo that poverty gathers there as to a feast . Wretchedness is there made a trade . Look at London , and tho action

on the Poor Laws . Ten years ago London , witn a million less population , had nearly 106 , 000 paupers , with a large fringe of peoplo " on" ancl "off" the Poor Laws . Then trade was flourishing , and labour was heavy in its demands . To-day , without hardshi p to the real poor , with an added million of population—with trade terribly depressed , we have—Wh t ? Why less than

80 , 000 pauper papulation . This is because tho legal charity is now discriminating . Increase your iudiscriminating charities , ancl you will increase your applicants . I was in a country place nofc long ago , and found that Masonry was very popular in a poor town among the artizan and small tradesman class . Tho reason was , that one of that class had been elected to a " pension " on

the It . M . B . I . All the improvident of that town aro looking forward to their time coming when they will be , qualified to become a " case . " As to our institutions themselves , I have a right , as a member of the Craft , to weigh each of them in the balance , as to the amount of good done , aud consider what might be done . I have endeavoured to increase the funds of tho " Old Men and Womens' Institution , " and successfull y ,

for I find the fnnds prudently and satisfactorily applied . But if ifc was proposed to give pensions of two or three hundred a-year , I should withhold my support . Yet the cost of the children in the R . M . B . Schools is far above , per head , what a parent with £ 500 or £ 600 a year can afford to spend upon his child . The evil does not end with the limits thus imposed upon the " charity , " ancl I may mention thafc

I was sounded by a brother , who some years ago subscribed to a country Lodge for a little time , whether he would have any chance of " running " his son into a thing wherein some £ 60 , £ 70 , or £ 80 a year was the sum reputed to be spent on each boy . This Brother looked npon the thing as " good enough , " because if he got it , it would give for begging more than ho would care to earn . We know that cettain

ancient seekers passed the month of a cavern . Well one day I was passing with a friend , in the holidays ( not this year ) , the door of a tavern , where resided the widow of a late brother . Quoth friend to me , pointing to a child at said door , "There ' s ono of the Masonic School children . " It was a fine house . 'No depression of trade there ; for the " people , " somehow , always find the money to get drink ;