Correspondence.

CORRESPONDENCE .

THE ROYAL MASONIC INSTITUTION FOR BOYS

To the Editor of the FREEMASON S CHRONICLE . DEAB S IR AND BROTHER , —In fyour criticisms of the work of the new Committee of Management , yon apparently base yonr deductions upon the false premise that tho sole dnty imposed upon them was to reduce the average cost per boy per year , and you appear to argue

that if they have failed in that one point they are a failure indeed . The real fact , however is , that the Committee of Management were elected to carry out the recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry , who found that the expenditure of the Institution was

extravagant , not properly regulated , and that the feeding and clothing of the boys was not satisfactory , nor waa their health and comfort properly attended to ; to obviate which it waa recommended ( amongst other things ) that :

The questions of sufficient playgrounds and proper appliances for health aud cleanliness of the pupils require immediate attention . Now , if the Committee have successfully carried out this recommendation , even at a cost of £ 2 , 111 , they have simply stood firm

and done their duty . The primary responsibility imposed upon them was to secure for the boys that which the Craft intended them to have , viz ., a healthy home , oleantiness , comfort , a sound education , good moral training , with effective supervision in health or sickness . It was never intended that economy should be secured by the

sacrifice of any of these points . The health and education of the boys was to bo the first study of the Committee , and it was then incumbent upon them to take care that those benefits were secured at the lowest possible cost per head . The boys are now well provided for in every way ; well fed , well housed , properly bathed , and

under careful medical supervision ; whereas the Committee of Inquiry found one and all these matters defective under the old regime . The pupils are not now sent to their homes ( as I saw one more than once ) carrying filthy contagion and suffering from neglected festering sores . With respect to educational resnlts , it is only necessary to point out

that in the year under the notice of the Committee of Inquiry , out of 258 boys only 12 passed the Cambridge Local Examinations , whilst last year 23 boys passed out of 264 . But , on the question of average cost , the results are eminently satisfactory , for it is futile for you to say that " Improvements are

on a par with Repairs and Renewals . " The £ 2 , 111 has been spent in additions , which were absolutely needed for the health and safety of the residents ; if the ntility of these additional Baths , Ac ., had exhausted itself last year , then the cost would rightly fall on that one year , but as a matter of fact these improvements will be valuable

accessories to the Institution for at least many years , and therefore the item is undoubtedly an expenditure on " Capital Account , " because the freehold is so much the more valuable for the particular purpose for which it is required . Moreover , the Committee have

spent in the year ( outside this £ 2 , 111 ) £ 111 10 s lOd on Repairs and Renewals , which it is fair to assume was all that was needed to keep the property in good order . As compared with 1887 ( the year noticed by the Committee of Inquiry ) the result is as under :

£ a d 1887—Average cost per boy 50 16 0 £ s d 1890—Expenditure 10 , 821 19 2 Pensions 106 4 0 Organ 72 0 0 10 per cent interest and

depreciation on £ 2 , 111 16 a 7 d 201 4 0 Total for 264 boys ... £ 11 , 201 7 2 Average cost per boy 42 8 7

Reduced cost per boy £ 8 7 5 Thus every boy has cost £ 8 7 s 3 d less than under the old dispensation , whilst he has had better attention , physically and educationally . Surely every well-wisher of the Institution owes a debt of eratitndfi tn the nntmrnHflfi of Tnnnivv who Tininf . nr ? nnfc f . hn imnrn « .

ments needed , and to the Committee of Management who have brought about such excellent resnlts . Yours faithfully and fraternally , E . "V . GREATBATCH .

DEAB SIR AND BROTHER , —Referring to the articles in your issues of the 21 st and 28 th March , and to the letter of "AN OLD READER OT ^ CHRONICLE" which appeared in the latter issue , allow me to point out that it is absolutely false that tho Provisional Management Committee " when they issued their accounts for the last half of 1889

To the Editor of the FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE .

professed to have reduced the expenditure per boy from £ 50 16 s Od to £ 39 5 s Od per annum" or to any other sum , or that they made an "empty" or any other "boast" that they had " reduced the expenditure by about 23 per cent . " or any other rate of per centage , or that they circulated " unfortunate , " or other " reports " to that effect . The Committee have hitherto purposely abstained from

publishing any comparison of cost per boy with that of former years , being too keenly impressed b y the difficulties and expense attached to the labour of relieving the Institution from liabilities of existing contracts to indulge in the hope that they could , in so short a period , be able to effect any substantial reduction in such cost . NevortheleM it ia a fact that the accounts published of the expendi

Correspondence.

ture of this Committee during 18 months ending 31 st December 1890 , prove as they have claimed " a successful financial result , " and " will bear a very favourable comparison with past years . " Comparisona have been made by you between the 1887 and i ho 1890 accounts , but in tho face of your first article , aud after n . week ' s con - sideration , coupled with the aid of "AN OLD READER . " you admit

that you " see an apparent improvement all round . " Possibly it may bo as well if you would also compare the 1888 accounts with those of 1890 , —the last complete year of the old management , and tho first complete year of the new , then you may after another week be enabled to discover still further improvement " all round . " Allow me to draw your attention to the fact that the

total general expenditure for 1888 with 263 boys was £ 12 , 36113 s 3 d ( after making allowance for pensions ) , whereas the total general expenditure for 1890 with 264 boys ( with all outstanding liabilit iea included , which was not the case with the expenditure of 1888 ) waa £ 10 , 82119 s 2 d , or , adopting your formula , £ 47 per head per annum under the old management , as against £ 40 19 s lOd , under what yon

are so polite to refer to as the " new brooms . " The Committee have not " ignored " tho £ 2 , 186 16 s 7 d spent in 1890 on " Improvements . " This sum in any trading concern would properly have been chargeable against capital , but the Committee did not consider it right to increase the capital expenditure , and consequently directed the amonnt to bo treated as an extraordinary ontlay . This outlay was

one of the many legacies left the Committee by the old management , and it wonld bo manifestly incorrect to include any part thereof in tho total general expenditure for the year . Your " OLD READER " has fallen into an error iu failing to distinguish the difference between a Balance Sheet and an Income and Expenditure Account , he admits he is not an adept in accountancy ,

therefore his error is pardonable , but that you should , with your experience , have committed the same blander , by accepting his erroneous figures as accurate , is surprising . The total general expenditure for 1890 , viz ., £ 10 , 821 19 s 2 d includes , as before stated , liabilities of sundry creditors , amounting to £ 1 , 999 18 s 2 d , yet it is contended by the " OLD READER " that this amount , after deducting some other amount , mast be added to another quantity . Gotnmeab is

superfluous ! In conclusion , permit me to say that the Craft believe that the Committee have " satisfactorily discharged the work required of them , " this is apparent in the fact that at the present moment the unprecedented number of 580 Stewards have signified their intention of making the coming Festival such a phenomenal financial success which no amount of envy or misrepresentation can possibly mar . Come over , and help ns ! Yours faithfully and fraternally , JOHN GLASS , V . P .

New Masonic Hall At Wallsend.

NEW MASONIC HALL AT WALLSEND .

ON Wednesday , the foundation stono of the aevr Masonic Hall , Station Road , Wallsend , was laid by the Right Worshipful Provincial Grand Master of Northumberland , Sir Matthew White Ridley , Bart ., M . P . Tho headquarters of the Tyne Lodge , 991 , [ at Wellington Quay , have for some time past been found inadequate to meet the increasing demands made upon it , and the advisability of possessing larger and more imposing premises was readily assented

to by all interested . The building has been designed by Mr . Wm . Hope , architect , of North Shields , in the Renaissance stylo of architecture . It faces Station Road with a bold gable of red brick and stone dressings , and has a turret over . The whole of the ground floor has been planned for the occupation of Messrs . Hodgkin , Barnett , Pease , Spence , and Co ., bankers , and the Wallsend Local

Board . The premises to be occupied by tho Local Board consist of a handsome Board room , about 26 feet long , 17 feet wide , and 15 feet high , with public offices and cloak rooma adjoining , all being entered from High Street . The upper floor will be entirely devoted to Masonic uses , and consists of a Lodge room 38 feet by 26 feet , and about 21 feet high , and refreshment and

ante rooms . Mr . W . T . Weir , of Howdon , is the contractor . At the ceremony of laying the foundation-stone there was a large gathering both of members of the various Lodges and the general public . Sir Matthew White Ridley was met at the Cafe Hall , which is in close proximity , by the Officers of the Provincial Grand Lodge , and a procession was formed to the new

building . Amongst those present were : —Col . Addison Potter , C . B ., P . G . Superintendent of Arch Masonry and P . G . D ., Bros . Geo . Blair W . M ., R . Carr P . S . G . W ., G . Tnrnbull P . M . P . P . G . Secretary , Corder P . Reg . Acting Deputy Secretary , G . H . Heslop P . G . Standard Bearer , George Allen P . M . P . P . G . D ., W . Gladstone P . M . P . P . G . S ., J . W . Lambton P . P . S . B ., Rev . T . B . Nichols Grand Chaplain , J . Calvert

P . P . G . Supt . of Works , Cowen W . M . 431 , G . D . Gilhespy P . M . P . G . S ., Hope , W . Wear , W . Barker W . M . 24 , Hammond W . M . St . Peter ' s Lodge , Arthur Scott I . P . M . St . Nicholas . The stone having been formally raised , the Grand Master delivered the usual address , invoking the blessing of the Great Architect of the Universe on the work in which they were engaged . The Rev . T . B . Nichols having

offered up proyer , Bro . Corder read the inscription on the stone , which was as follows : " Tho foundation stone of this Masonic Hall was laid on the 1 st of April 1891 , by the R . W . Provincial Grand Master of Northumberland , Sir Matthew White Ridley , Bart ., M . P ., Blagdon . " The Grand Treasurer Bro . G . A . Allan then deposited in a cavity under the stono a bottle containing three Newcastle

newspapers , a history of the Lodge , and the current coins of the realm . The Worshipful Master of the Tyne Lodge , Bro . G . Blair , next presented a silver trowel to the Grand Master , with which he formally declared the stone to be truly laid . Prayer having been offered by the Grand Chaplain , the ceremony concluded . Subsequently a dinner was held in the Cafe , over which the Grand Master Sir Matthew White Ridley presided .